Journal of Service Science and Management, 2011, 4, 97-109
doi:10.4236/jssm.2011.41013 Published Online March 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)
97
An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s
Service Attributes
Jing Lu, Xiaoxing Gong, Lei Wang
Transportation and Management College, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China.
Received September 28th, 2010; revised November 4th, 2010; accepted November 7th, 2010.
ABSTRACT
This paper empirically evaluates container terminal service attributes from shipping lines and shipping agencies’ per-
spective. Some methods are applied for study, such as Internal-Consistency Reliab ility, Factor Analysis, Cluster Analy-
sis, Importance-Satisfaction Analysis and analysis of variance. The results suggest that customers perceive reliability of
the agreed vessel sailin g time to b e the most important conta iner terminal service attribute fo llowed by custom declara-
tion efficiency, loading and discharging efficiency, port cost and berth availability. While quality of port facility is the
most satisfactory service attribute. Ba sed on the concept of market segmen tation, we employed cluster analysis to clas-
sify customers of container terminal into three segments, namely port cost oriented firms, port facilities and equipments
oriented firms, and service efficiency and IT service oriented firms. Theoretical and practical implications of the re-
search findings are discussed.
Keywords: Cluster Analysis, Container Terminal s , Market Segmentation
1. Introduction
Thanks to the great performance of its container termi-
nals, China has now reached a world-class position for
container traffic. All the ports are experiencing a great
increase in container throughput, which aiming at devel-
oping not only the infrastructures but also the container
terminal service. However, this led to high competitive-
ness of container terminals across the country, due to a
large number of new ones entering this market.
The importance of customer service in competitive
strategy has long been recognized [1,2]. There is a reali-
zation that markets should be segmented based on cus-
tomer service requirements [3-5]. If container terminals
are able to identify the exact service needs of their target
customers, it is possible to segment the user groups on
the basis of their differing service requirements. To do so,
distinctly different service requirements must first be
understood. To this end, the paper presents a methodol-
ogy for evaluating the importance and satisfaction that
container terminal customers in Shenzhen, PRC attach to
service attributes, both in aggregate and by service di-
mensions. Further, it develops market segments for con-
tainer terminals based on shipping lines and shipping
agencies’ attitudes, and addresses their implications for
container terminals operators’ marketing activities. The
container terminal service variables were extracted from
the previous relevant research and studies in the con-
tainer terminals industry.
Nowadays, more and more factors of container termi-
nal are considered by shipping lines when they decide the
ports to call. And service attributes are the most impor-
tant factors, such as port facility enlargement measures,
modernization of stevedoring equipment, development of
feeder route, decreasing tariffs, providing enough storage
hours, optimizing line-haul truck operations, speedy and
safe handling of special cargoes, etc.
The following are some reviews of previous foreign
studies on the extraction of the container terminal service
attributes. French [6] suggested terminal facilities, tariffs,
port congestion, service level, and port operators as im-
portant components. Peters [7] put emphasis on the ser-
vice level, available facility capacity, status of the facility,
and port operation. In Kim’s [8] study, important service
attributes contained navigation facilities and equipment
holding status, port productivity, price competition, and
port service quality. Gi-Tae YEO and Dong-Wook
SONG [9] investigated Korean ports and listed several
container terminal service attributes: application of EDI

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 98
system, average hours of port congestion, berth/terminal
availability, building Port MIS, capacity/status of facili-
ties available, customs clearance system, effectiveness of
terminal operations, existence of cargo tracing system,
existence of terminal operating system, extent of port
EDI, loading time, ability of port personnel, port opera-
tion time, port tariff, sufficiency of berth, etc. Based
upon literature survey, this study conducted the survey
on the container terminal service attributes, and finally
decided 29 main items.
Also, the concept of market segmentation is a strategic
marketing management tool for resource allocation that
is used to enhance customer satisfaction and improve
organizational profitability. Market segmentation in-
volves the grouping of customers or prospective custom-
ers who may have similar responses to a product/service
offering. The process of market segmentation includes an
understanding of how or why customers buy, how a
company can fit its competencies to the needs of cus-
tomers, and how to develop strategies and marketing
programs to enhance the profits of firms [10,11].
Market segmentation has been used in research related
to the fields of maritime studies and logistics. For exam-
ple, McGinnis [3,12] analyzed freight market segments
based on the attitudes of shippers. Collison [4] examined
market segments for marine liner services. From a logis-
tics perspective, Gilmour et al. [13] investigated differ-
ences in customer service by market segment in the sci-
entific instrument and supplies industry. Bonoma and
Shapiro [14] and Murphy and Daley [11] suggested a
nesting approach that allowed the marketer to choose
specific segmentation bases according to the require-
ments of their target markets. Recently, Lu [15] used the
concept of market segmentation to evaluate international
distribution centers, Lu and Shang [16] investigated
safety climate in container terminal operators, Lu, Lai
and Cheng [17] also researched web site services in liner
shipping in Taiwan. To the best of our knowledge, this
paper is one of the first devoted to evaluating the re-
quirements of container terminal services attributes based
on the perspectives of the customers, i.e. shipping lines
and shipping agencies.
There are five sections in this study. Section 2 pro-
vides a review of the literature on container terminal ser-
vice attributes and market segmentation. Section 3 dis-
cusses the methodology employed to address the research
issues. Section 4 presents the results in terms of the var-
ious analyses and discusses the individual customer
groups in details. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions
drawn from the analyses and marketing implications of
container terminal operators, the limitation of this re-
search are outlined as well.
2. Methodology and Theoretical
Considerations
The research is accomplished by questionnaire. We set
some hypotheses before the survey, and then verify them.
The hypotheses are in the follow, 1) there are significant
differences on port’s service attributes indices and satis-
faction among every cluster; 2) there are significant dif-
ferences on port’s service attributes factors and satisfac-
tion among every cluster; 3) there are significant differ-
ences on demand of port’s diversity service among every
cluster; 4) there are significant differences on perception
of port’s service attributes indices and factors, and de-
mand of port’s diversity service, due to the difference of
basic information attributes. The research steps including
questionnaire design and research methods are illustrated
below.
Step 1: questionnaire design and content validity test
The first step was the selection of container terminals
service attributes by reviewing the related thesis, fol-
lowed by the design of the questionnaire, personal inter-
views with shipping practitioners, and a content validity
test. The questionnaire design followed the stages out-
lined by Churchill [18]. The sought information was first
specified, and then the following issues were settled: type
of questionnaire and its method of administration, con-
tents of individual questions, form of response to and
wording of each question, sequence of questions, and
physical characteristics of the questionnaire.
In the process of determining the questionnaire items,
it is crucial to ensure the validity of their content, which
is an important measure of a survey instrument’s accu-
racy. Content validity refers to the extent to which a test
does measure what we actually wish to measure [19].
The assessment of content validity typically involves an
organized review of the survey’s content to ensure that it
includes everything it should and does not include any-
thing it should not. It provides a good foundation on
which to build a methodologically rigorous assessment of
a survey instrument’s validity. Thus, the content validity
of the questionnaire in this study was tested through a
literature review and interviews with practitioners, i.e.,
questions in the questionnaire were based on previous
studies and discussions with a number of liner shipping
executives and experts. The questionnaire items were
based on previous studies [20,21]. Mearns et al. [22]
judged as relevant by 15 shipping executives and experts.
The interviews resulted in minor modifications to the
wording and examples provided in some measurement
items, which were finally accepted as possessing content
validity. For each item, respondents were asked to indi-
cate the extent to which they agreed with the item de-
scribed in its prospective content domain. A five-point

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 99
rating scale was used for each item (1 = strongly disagree,
2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5
= strongly agree).
Step 2: item-total correlations analysis and factor
analysis
In the second step, item-total correlations analysis and
factor analysis were conducted in order to identify and
summarize a large number of container terminals service
attributes into a smaller, manageable set of underlying
factors or dimensions, called service factors. A reliability
test was conducted to assess whether these container
terminals service factors were reliable.
Step 3: cluster analysis
In the third step, a cluster analysis was performed to
form clusters of shipping lines groups. Cluster analysis
has proved to be an effective method for examining
market segmentation in earlier studies. In the present
study, through cluster analysis, the formation of market
segments was made by grouping customers having simi-
lar service requirements. Ward’s hierarchical technique
using squared Euclidean distances was chosen to form
clusters. Respondents were categorized into various seg-
ments on the basis of their factor scores.
Step 4: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
Importance-Satisfaction Analysis
The final step was to identify differences in container
terminal service attributes and differences in factor
scores among the segments. One-way ANOVA was used
to identify whether perceived differences in container
terminal service dimensions existed among the groups. In
addition, a Scheffe test was employed to identify per-
ceived differences among groups based on their percep-
tions of critical container terminal service dimensions.
Importance-Satisfaction Analysis was used to explore the
important and satisfactory perceived level to service at-
tributes of each group and the perceived differences
among three groups. All analyses were carried out using
SPSS 11.0 for Windows and the results of the data ana-
lyses are discussed in the next section.
3. Empirical Analyses
3.1. The Sample
This research was based on shipping lines and shipping
agencies whose main business is container transportation,
specifically in Shenzhen in South China. 96 question-
naires were sent to 38 shipping lines and 10 shipping
agencies in March 2006. A total of 42 usable question-
naires were collected, which represented 43.8% of the
target sample.
Respondents’ profiles and their characteristics are dis-
played in Table 1. Results showed that 76.2% of survey
Table 1. Profile of respondents.
Characteristics of respondents Frequency %
Shipping lines 32 76.2%
Nature of
Company Shipping agency 10 23.8%
Senior
Management Staff 10 23.8%
Management Staff 16 38.1%
Employee 4 9.5%
Operator 11 26.2%
Job Title
Others 1 2.4%
More than 20
years 3 7.1%
16 ~ 20 years 9 21.5%
11 ~ 15 years 16 38.1%
6 ~ 10 years 11 26.2%
Years of
working
experience
in container
shipping
business
Less than 5 years 3 7.1%
participants were shipping lines, 23.8% were shipping
agencies respectively. Many respondents held the posi-
tions of director (38.1%) or manager/assistant manager
or above (23.8%).
In order to ascertain whether respondents actually un-
derstood container terminal service attributes, they were
asked to indicate how long they had worked in the ship-
ping business. Table 1 shows that just about one tenth of
respondents (7.1%) had worked in the shipping business
less than 5 years, and nearly 67% had worked in the
shipping business more than 10 years, suggesting they
had abundant practical experience to answer the ques-
tions.
3.2. Results and Analyses
1) Perceptions of container terminals service
According to their aggregated scores for agreement
with the 29 container terminal service attributes, respon-
dents’ perceptions ranged from neutral to strongly agree
(their mean scores were all over 3.0). The top five con-
tainer terminal service attributes in current organizations
were: Reliability of the agreed vessel sailing time (ETD),
Custom declaration efficiency, Loading and discharging
efficiency, Port tariff and Berth availability (see Tab l e 2 ).
In contrast, respondents showed lowest agreement with
the following: Storage service for special containers and
Quality of handling special cargo and special services
(their mean scores were below 3.5).
In terms of the satisfaction, respondents’ perceptions
ranged from weakly to strongly satisfy (their mean scores
were all over 3.0). The top five container terminal service

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 100
Table 2. Comparison of service attributes among direct customers.
Importance Satisfaction
Service Attributes
Mean S.D. Ranking Mean S.D. Ranking
Reliability of the agreed vessel sailing time (ETD) 4.55 0.67 1 3.95 0.65 5
Custom declaration efficiency 4.55 0.59 2 3.65 0.75 15
Loading and discharging efficiency 4.52 0.74 3 4.00 0.82 3
Port tariff 4.50 0.63 4 2.88 0.88 29
Berth availability 4.48 0.55 5 3.86 0.52 7
Information accuracy 4.45 0.67 6 3.79 0.68 8
Quality of port facility (berth, yard, etc) 4.40 0.73 7 4.42 0.70 1
External road infrastructure 4.38 0.66 8 3.65 0.57 12
Professionalism of staff 4.38 0.66 9 3.65 0.65 14
Container tracking and tracing service 4.38 0.70 10 3.98 0.74 4
Keeping customers informed of service issues and new development 4.36 0.76 11 3.63 0.66 17
Depot and gate operation efficiency (truck turnaround time) 4.29 0.67 12 3.63 0.79 16
Reliability and accuracy of operating plan 4.29 0.71 13 3.77 0.65 9
Willingness to negotiate with customers 4.21 0.98 14 3.23 0.68 27
Quality of port equipment (quay crane, yard crane, etc) 4.19 0.71 15 4.14 0.77 2
Pilot and tug boat services 4.19 0.71 16 3.65 0.78 13
Friendliness of staff 4.19 0.55 17 3.58 0.73 22
Safety handling for containers (Low damage or loss rate) 4.14 0.78 18 3.63 0.79 18
Container pre-declaration service 4.14 0.87 19 3.44 0.73 26
Storage service 4.07 0.60 20 3.70 0.71 11
IT management system 4.07 0.81 21 3.91 0.68 6
Training for staff 3.98 0.81 22 3.53 0.63 24
Holding special containers’ document 3.93 0.81 23 3.60 0.66 20
Transhipment service 3.79 1.00 24 3.21 0.83 28
Host customer seminars regularly 3.79 1.05 25 3.60 0.88 21
logistics value-added service 3.69 1.05 26 3.47 0.77 25
Container repair and maintenance service 3.52 0.89 27 3.60 0.66 19
Storage service for special containers 3.45 0.83 28 3.53 0.70 23
Quality of handling special cargo and special services 3.38 0.91 29 3.74 0.69 10
attributes in current organizations were: Quality of port
facility (berth, yard, etc), Quality of port equipment
(quay crane, yard crane, etc), Loading and discharging
efficiency, Container tracking and tracing service and
Reliability of the agreed vessel sailing time (ETD) (see
Table 2). In contrast, respondents showed lowest satis-
faction in the following: logistics value-added service,
Container pre-declaration service, Willingness to negoti-
ate with customers, Transhipment service and Port tariff
(their mean scores were below 3.5).
The mean scores are based on a 5 point Likert scales
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); S.D. =

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 101
standard deviation.
T test also indicates that shipping lines and shipping
agencies do not have obvious difference in the most ser-
vice attributes’ importance and satisfaction except Qual-
ity of handling special cargo and special services and
Container pre-declaration service. So the research sup-
poses shipping lines and agencies as the same kind of
customers of container terminal.
2) Factor analysis
Factor analysis was used to reduce the 29 container
terminal service attributes to smaller sets of underlying
factors (dimensions). It’s used to detect the presence of
meaningful patterns among the original variables and to
extract the main service factors. Principal components
analysis with VARIMAX rotation was employed to iden-
tify key container terminal service dimensions as shown
in Table 3, According to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin meas-
ure of sampling adequacy value of 0.627 [23], the data
were deemed appropriate for analysis. The Bartlett Test
of Sphericity was significant [m2 = 949.067, P < 0.01],
indicating that correlations existed among some of the
response categories. Scree plots and eigenvalues greater
than 1 were used to determine the number of factors in
each data set [18]. A plot of the size of eigenvalues
against the number of factors in their order of extraction
is shown in Figure 1. The last real factor is considered to
be that point before which the first scree begins [23].
Factors with eigenvalues lower than one were not sig-
nificantly indicated in the first scree plot. The seven key
container terminal service dimensions identified ac-
counted for approximately 76.26% of the total variance.
To aid interpretation, only variables with a factor
loading greater than 0.50, were extracted, a conservative
criterion based on Kim and Muller [24] and Hair et al.
[23]. The scores on each of the container terminal service
dimensions (factors) were calculated for each respondent
and submitted to subsequent cluster analysis. Seven ser-
vice dimensions (factors) were found to underlie the
various sets of container terminal service attributes.
These were labeled and are described below:
(1) Factor 1, a port facilities and equipments dimen-
sion, consisting of 4 items: a) Berth availability, b) Qual-
ity of port facility (berth, yard, etc), c) External road in-
frastructure and d) Quality of port equipment (quay crane,
yard crane, etc). External road infrastructure had the
highest factor weighing on this factor. This factor ac-
counted for 41.17% of the total variance. Customer’s
mean agreement is 4.36,

is 0.9018.
(2) Factor 2, a port cost dimension, comprising 2 items:
a) Port tariff and b) Willingness to negotiate with cus-
tomers. Willingness to negotiate with customers had the
highest factor weighing on this factor. Factor 2 accounted
Figure 1. Scree plot of factors.
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis.
for 9.97% of the total variance. Customer’s mean agree-
ment is 4.39,

is 0.9064.
(3) Factor 3, a customer orientation dimension, con-
sisting of 4 items: a) Hold special containers’ document,
b) Host customer seminars regularly, c) Containers
pre-declaration service and d) Custom declaration effi-
ciency. Host customer seminars regularly had the highest
factor weighing on this factor. Factor 3 accounted for
6.36% of the total variance. Customer’s mean agreement
is 4.04,

is 0.8916.
(4) Factor 4, an IT service dimension, comprising 3
items: a) Information accuracy, b) Container tracking and

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 102
Table 3. Factor Analysis for container terminal service attributes.
Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
Berth availability 0.83 0.01 0.11 −0.02 0.01 0.12 0.08
Quality of port facility (berth, yard, etc) 0.60 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.22 0.17 0.38
External road infrastructure 0.84 0.06 0.04 −0.06 −0.01 0.06 0.19
Quality of port equipment (quay crane, yard crane, etc) 0.69 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.02 0.48 0.13
Storage service 0.51 −0.28 0.12 −0.10 0.03 0.08 0.60
Storage service for special containers 0.06 0.16 −0.04 0.02 0.11 −0.02 0.84
Pilot and tug boat services −0.11 0.54 0.11 −0.10 −0.19 −0.33 0.57
Quality of handling special cargo and special services −0.03 0.15 0.28 0.01 -0.10 −0.09 0.83
Transhipment service 0.33 0.19 0.30 -0.19 0.25 −0.38 0.50
Container repair and maintenance service 0.34 0.39 0.29 0.13 0.14 −0.33 −0.53
logistics value-added service 0.20 0.00 −0.02 0.33 −0.02 −0.06 0.87
Port tariff 0.16 0.62 0.16 0.39 −0.15 −0.12 0.13
Willingness to negotiate with customers 0.06 0.80 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.01
Reliability of the agreed vessel sailing time (ETD) 0.53 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.17 0.65 0.21
Loading and discharging efficiency 0.08 0.08 0.39 0.14 0.19 0.73 0.28
Depot and gate operation efficiency (truck turnaround
time) 0.43 0.40 0.31 0.00 0.18 0.52 0.07
Keeping customers informed of service issues and new
development 0.22 0.51 0.37 0.08 0.26 0.52 0.13
Reliability and accuracy of operating plan 0.39 0.10 0.41 0.08 0.40 0.55 0.40
Safety handling for containers (Low damage or loss rate)0.18 0.19 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.82 0.04
Friendliness of staff 0.48 0.08 0.17 0.18 0.60 0.35 −0.15
Professionalism of staff 0.28 0.32 0.17 0.09 0.67 −0.08 0.26
Training for staff 0.32 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.82 0.07 −0.09
Hold special containers’ document 0.29 0.44 0.64 0.18 −0.27 0.04 −0.05
Host customer seminars regularly 0.25 0.00 0.77 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.00
Container pre-declaration service 0.32 −0.11 0.51 0.48 0.23 −0.29 −0.18
Custom declaration efficiency 0.39 0.14 0.69 0.17 0.16 −0.08 0.05
Information accuracy 0.46 0.44 0.26 0.50 0.09 −0.03 0.25
Container tracking and tracing service 0.01 0.33 0.17 0.74 0.16 0.16 −0.14
IT management system 0.13 0.53 0.06 0.61 0.10 0.05 0.20
Eigenvalue 11.94 2.89 1.84 1.64 1.48 1.25 1.07
Percentage variance 41.17 9.97 6.36 5.64 5.11 4.33 3.69
Cumulative Percentage variance 41.17 51.14 57.49 63.13 66.24 72.56 76.26

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 103
tracing service and c) IT management system. Container
tracking and tracing service had the highest factor
weighing on this dimension. Factor 4 accounted for 5.64
% of the total variance. Customer’s mean agreement is
4.25,

is 0.8705.
(5) Factor 5, a staff service ability dimension, consist-
ing of 3 items: a) Friendliness of staff, b) Professionalism
of staff and c) Training for staff. Training for staff had
the highest factor weighing on this dimension. Factor 5
accounted for 5.11% of the total variance. Customer’s
mean agreement is 4.09,

is 0.8761.
(6) Factor 6, a service efficiency dimension, compris-
ing 6 items: a) Reliability of the agreed vessel sailing
time (ETD), b) Loading and discharging efficiency, c)
Depot and gate operation efficiency (truck turnaround
time), d) Keeping customers informed of service issues
and new development, e) Reliability and accuracy of
operating plan and f) Safety handling for containers
(Low damage or loss rate). Safety handling for containers
(Low damage or loss rate) had the highest factor weigh-
ing on this dimension. Factor 6 accounted for 4.33% of
the total variance. Customer’s mean agreement is 4.31,

is 0.8767.
(7) Factor 7, a general service dimension, consisting of
7 attributes: a) Storage service, b) Storage service for
special containers, c) Pilot and tug boat services, d)
Quality of handling special cargo and special services, e)
Transhipment service, f) Container repair and mainte-
nance service and g) logistics value-added service. Lo-
gistics value-added service had the highest factor weigh-
ing on this dimension. Factor 7 accounted for 3.69% of
the total variance. Customer’s mean agreement is 3.63,

is 0.8964.
(3) Reliability test
A reliability test based on a Cronbach Alpha statistic
was used to test whether these factors were consistent
and reliable in measuring the research variables. Cron-
bach Alpha values for each dimension are shown in Ta-
ble 4. The reliability value of each factor was well above
0.87, indicating adequate internal consistency [18,25,26].
Table 4 also shows shipping lines’ agreement level as
to the importance of each container terminal service di-
mension in the current situation. The results indicate that
they considered Port cost dimension as the most impor-
tant one (factor 2), followed by Port facilities and
equipments dimension (factor 1), Service efficiency di-
mension (factor 6), IT service dimension (factor 4), Staff
service ability dimension (factor 5), Customer orientation
dimension (factor 3), and General service dimension
(factor 7).
4) Cluster analysis results
In addition to identifying whether perceived differences
Table 4. Cronbach alpha values for each service dimension.
Service factor Mean S.D. Crobach
Alpha
1. Port facilities and equipments4.36 0.50 0.90
2. Port cost 4.39 0.74 0.91
3. Customer orientation 4.04 0.66 0.89
4. IT service 4.25 0.69 0.87
5. Staff service ability 4.09 0.62 0.88
6. Service efficiency 4.31 0.65 0.88
7. General service 3.63 0.60 0.90
existed among groups based on respondents’ characteris-
tics, the 42 respondents were categorized into three
groups on the basis of their factor scores in container
terminal service dimensions. Twelve were assigned to
Group 1, sixteen to Group 2, and fourteen to Group 3.
Figure 2 presents the centroids of the three segments to
visually illustrate their differences.
Dendrogram used the Ward Method Rescaled Distance
Cluster Combine.
5) Discriminant analysis results
A classification matrix was used to test the accuracy of
the classification. Table 5 shows the percentage of cor-
rect classifications and the number of incorrect predic-
tions. The overall classification accuracy is approxi-
mately 92.86% (sum of correct predictions, 39, divided
by total predictions of ‘known’ cases, 42). The errors
stemmed from one case of Group 1 having been incor-
rectly assigned to Group 2, two cases of Group 2 incor-
rectly assigned to Group 1. More details about wrong
grouping items can be found in Table 6.
6) One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
test the differences in a specific strategic dimension
among strategic groups. Table 7 shows the results of
ANOVA in the terms of factor scores. All seven strategic
dimensions were significantly different among the three
groups.
A comparison of the factor scores shows that Group 1
has its highest mean score on factor 2 (port cost), but it
has a much lower score on factor 7 (general service).
Group 2 particularly emphasizes factor 1 (port facilities
and equipments), followed by factor 2 (port cost) and
factor 6 (service efficiency). Group 3 displays high
scores for most strategic dimensions, exhibiting the
highest mean score for the factor 6 (service efficiency)
and factor 4 (IT service).
In addition, ANOVA analysis was used to test the dif-
ferences of service dimension among different job titles
and shipping experience groups. Unfortunately, the result

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 104
Table 5. Classification matrix.
Classification Results
Predicted Group Membership
Actual
Group
Number of
Case 1 2 3
12 11 1 0
Group 1
91.7% 8.3% 0
16 2 14 0
Group 2
12.5% 87.5% 0
14 0 0 14
Group 3
0 0 100.0%
Average percent of “Group” cases correctly classified: 92.86% (=39/42).
Table 6. Wrong grouping items table.
Company No. Actual Group Predicted Group
4 1 2
17 2 1
26 2 1
indicated that most importance and satisfaction of service
dimension were not significantly different among job
titles and shipping experience groups except factor 2 and
factor 7 (see Table 8). This implies that the job titles and
shipping business experience are not the important fac-
tors influencing the importance and satisfaction agree-
ment of container terminal service factors.
Three groups were identified by the above analyses.
Strategic Group 1: port cost oriented firms (Twelve
responding firms, 28.57% of total). The main distin-
guishing feature of this group is ‘port cost’. As it is
showed in Table 7, members of this group consider the
‘port cost’ to be more important factor influencing them
whether choose the container terminal than do the other
responding firms. Additionally, firms in this group were
composed of small size companies.
Strategic Group 2: port facilities and equipments ori-
ented firms (Sixteen responding firms, 38.10% of total).
Group 2 appears to consist of a group of firms empha-
sizing port facilities. Thus, this group was defined as port
facilities and equipments oriented firms. Additionally,
firms in this group were composed of middle size com-
panies.
Strategic Group 3: service efficiency and IT service
oriented firms (Fourteen responding firms, 33.33% of
total). Upon inspection of the attitudes in this group, as
shown in Table 7 , most strategic dimensions were found
to be significantly more important. Based on the mean
scores, this group particularly emphasizes factor 6 (ser-
vice efficiency) and factor 4 (IT service). Hence, this
group is identified as service efficiency and IT service
oriented firms. Additionally, this group includes large
size shipping companies and terminal’s VIP customers.
About satisfaction ANOVA, three groups show con-
sistent agreement to port facilities and equipments (factor
1), port cost (factor 2), IT service (factor 4) and general
service (factor 7). Three groups’ most dissatisfied di-
mension is port cost, while group 1 displays less satisfac-
tion to all seven service dimensions than other two
groups (see Table 9).
7) Importance-Satisfaction Analysis results
The Importance-Satisfaction Analysis results also in-
dicate that group 1 shows lower apperception in most of
container terminals service attributes, while group 2 and
group 3 show more satisfaction in the service attributes
(Figures 3-5).
4. Conclusions
This study emphasizes the importance and satisfaction of
identifying market segments of container terminal based
Table 7. AVOVA analysis between importance agreement of service dimensions and groups.
Group (Mean)
Service Factor
1 2 3
F ratio Duncan test
1. Port facilities and equipments 3.75 4.53 4.59 24.056 (1), (2,3)
2. Port cost 3.83 4.41 4.57 3.988 (1), (2,3)
3. Customer orientation 3.54 4.02 4.46 8.575 (1), (2), (3)
4. IT service 3.53 4.21 4.86 27.076 (1), (2), (3)
5. Staff service ability 3.56 4.02 4.69 22.509 (1), (2), (3)
6. Service efficiency 3.53 4.33 4.88 41.626 (1), (2), (3)
7. General service 3.25 3.47 4.24 19.622 (1,2), (3)

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 105
Table 8. ANOVA Analysis betwee n se rvice dimensions and j o b title as well as working years.
Service Factor Important Agreement (F ratio) Satisfaction Agreement (F ratio)
Job Title Working Years Job Title Working Years
1. Port facilities and equipments 1.76 1.04 2.03 1.15
2. Port cost 0.55 0.16 2.89 2.80
3. Customer orientation 0.98 0.35 1.06 1.00
4. IT service 1.32 0.20 1.52 1.09
5. Staff service ability 1.65 0.24 1.94 2.33
6. Service efficiency 1.95 0.45 1.43 1.08
7. General service 3.23 0.84 2.75 0.30
Table 9. AVOVA analysis between satisfaction agreement of service dimensions and groups.
Group (Mean)
Service Factor
1 2 3
F ratio Duncan test
1. Port facilities and equipments 3.75 4.17 4.07 3.69 (1,2,3)
2. Port cost 2.92 3.25 2.93 1.26 (1,2,3)
3. Customer orientation 3.25 3.70 3.75 4.10 (1),(2,3)
4. IT service 3.36 4.08 4.14 10.46 (1),(2,3)
5. Staff service ability 3.39 3.71 3.67 1.12 (1,2,3)
6. Service efficiency 3.40 3.94 3.83 3.93 (1),(2,3)
7. General service 3.23 3.52 3.84 5.23 (1,2,3)
on the service requirements of customers (shipping lines
and shipping agencies). The main findings of this study
based on a survey conducted in Shenzhen, PRC are
summarized below.
The five most important container terminal service at-
tributes from the perception of the shipping lines and
shipping agencies are Reliability of the agreed vessel
sailing time (ETD), Custom declaration efficiency, Load-
ing and discharging efficiency, Port tariff and Berth
availability. This is consistent with previous studies on
the service attributes of container terminal [4,5,27-30].
Meanwhile, the five most important container terminal
service attributes are quality of port facility (berth, yard,
etc), quality of port equipment (quay crane, yard crane,
etc), Loading and discharging efficiency, container
tracking and tracing service and Reliability of the agreed
vessel sailing time (ETD). The present research indicates
that container terminal need to especially consider about
shipping lines and shipping agencies’ perceptions of
these service attributes when developing their services
offerings.
A factor analysis was conducted to classify the identi-
fied container terminal service attributes into seven criti-
cal service factors. These seven container terminal ser-
vice factors are labeled as Port facilities and equipments
dimension, Port cost dimension, Customer orientation
dimension, IT service dimension, Staff service ability
dimension, Service efficiency dimension, and General
service dimension. The results indicate that Port cost
dimension is the most important factor (factor 2), fol-
lowed by Port facilities and equipments dimension (fac-
tor 1), Service efficiency dimension (factor 6), IT service
dimension (factor 4), Staff service ability dimension
(factor 5), Customer orientation dimension (factor 3), and
General service dimension (factor 7).
Cluster analysis subsequently assigned respondents
into three groups: (a) port cost oriented firms, (b) port
facilities and equipments oriented firms, and (c) service
efficiency and IT service oriented firms, based on their
factor scores in seven container terminal service dimen-
sions. All seven container terminal service dimensions
differed significantly among the three groups.
Subsequent ANOVA analysis and Importance-Satis-
faction analysis revealed service efficiency and IT ser-

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 106
4.504.003.503.002.50
Importance
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
Satisfaction 29
28
27 26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18 17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 3
2 1
Figure 3. Importance-satisfaction chart of Group 1.
5.004.504.003.503.00
Importance
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Satisfaction
29 28
27
26
25
24
23
22
2120
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Figure 4. Importance-satisfaction chart of Group 2.
vice oriented firms (group 3) had highest perception in
container terminal service from importance and satisfac-
tion aspects, followed by port facilities and equipments
oriented firms (group 2), and port cost oriented firms
(group 1). Further research revealed that the most of
companies in group 3 are VIP and biggest customers of
the container terminal, while the companies in group 1
are much smaller ones.
Several marketing implications are derived from the
study results. First, the different characteristics of the

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 107
5.004.804.604.404.204.00
Importance
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
Satisfaction
29
28 27
26
25
24
23 22 21
20
19
18
17
16 15 14
13
12
11
10
9
87
6 5
4
3
2
1
Figure 5. Importance-satisfaction chart of Group 3.
three groups emphasize container terminal to be ac-
quainted with the market. While a strategy of appealing
to all customer groups usually results in presenting a
fuzzy image in the marketplace, and careful analysis of
the various customer groups may enable container ter-
minal to appeal to more than one group if the needs of
the various customer groups are not in conflict, and the
service can be differentiated to meet the needs of various
customer groups. For example, the container terminal
might emphasize its ability to satisfy the port facilities
and equipments of an account perceived as being in the
group of port facilities and equipments oriented firms,
while stressing special services to another shipping lines
and shipping agencies perceived as being a port cost ori-
ented firms and emphasizing service efficiency and IT
service stability to a third customer that is perceived as
being service efficiency and IT service oriented firms.
A second implication is that competition among con-
tainer terminals will vary from customer group to cus-
tomer group. This means that container terminal should
think of competition in terms of their customer markets.
Marketing activities for each customer group should
emphasize the container terminal advantages relative to
the needs of each group, the strengths and weaknesses of
likely competitors in each customer group as well. Fi-
nally, container terminal should not neglect the useful-
ness of customer market segmentation and service dif-
ferentiation in competition. The ability of the container
terminal to detect subtle differences between customers
and tailor-made services to the needs of each customer
should improve its ability to gain competitive advantage
in a competitive environment.
One of the major contributions of this study is the use
of shipping lines and shipping agencies’ perceptions as
data for developing container terminal service segments.
This approach has the potential to improve the under-
standing of marketing strategies for developing container
terminal services or related studies. From a theoretical
perspective, this study is the first of its kind in evaluating
service attributes and identifying different customer
groups for container terminal services. It provides a
framework for understanding container terminal services
requirements from the shipping lines and shipping agen-
cies’ perspective.
However, it suffers from several limitations. Firstly,
this research was limited to examining service attributes
within the particular container terminal in PRC. There
exists a wide scope for future research on container ter-
minal services issues in a multi-national context.
Secondly, though this study was population based, it
was cross-sectional in design. Container terminal opera-
tors’ perceptions of service attributes were not tested
across time. Therefore, future research could usefully
identify the levels of importance and the performance of
container terminal service attributes from the container
terminal operators’ point of view, since this could con-

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 108
ceivably help the container terminal operators better to
identify its market segments, differentiate its services,
and gain a competitive advantage.
Thirdly, the study does not address the issue of cause
and effect. The analysis of variance was adequate to ac-
knowledge a significant relationship among the various
variables. Possibly, the use of ‘structural equation mod-
eling’ applications will be necessary to determine if there
are any cause and effect relationships between the strate-
gic dimensions and performance.
Finally, this study was undertaken within a 1 year pe-
riod to explore the customer groups. To understand the
changes of market groups, it would be helpful to examine
a longitudinal period and hence to make comparisons
over time.
REFERENCES
[1] T. A. Oliva, R. L. Oliver and L. C. MacMillan, “A Catas-
trophe Model for Developing Service Satisfaction Strate-
gies,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 3, 1992, pp.
83-95. doi:10.2307/1252298
[2] C. Homburg, W. D. Hoyer and M. Fassnacht, “Service
Orientation of a Retailer’s Business Strategy: Dimensions,
Antecedents, and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2002, pp. 86-101.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.4.86.18511
[3] M. A. McGinnis, “Shipper Attitudes towards Freight
Transport Choice: A Factor Analytical Study,” Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1979, pp. 25-34.
[4] F. M. Collison, “Market Segments for Marine Liner Ser-
vice,” Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1984, pp. 40-54.
[5] T. J. Mahmud, “Marketing of Freight Liner Shipping
Services with Reference to the Far East-Europe Trade: A
Malaysian Perspective,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Maritime Studies and International Transport, Univer-
sity of Wales College of Cardiff, UK, 1995.
[6] R. A. French, “Competition among Selected Eastern Ca-
nadian Ports for Foreign Cargo,” Maritime Policy and
Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1979, pp. 5-14.
doi:10.1080/03088837900000042
[7] H. J. Peters, “Structural Changes in International Trade
and Transport Markets: The Importance of Markets,” The
2nd KMI International Symposium, Seoul, 1990.
[8] H. S. Kim, “A Study on the Decision Components of
Shippers’ Port Choice in Korea,” Korea Maritime Insti-
tute, Seoul, 1993.
[9] G.-T. Yeo and D.-W. Song, “The Hierarchical Analysis
of Perceived Competitive: An Application to Korean
Container Ports,” Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2005, pp. 866-880.
[10] M. Christopher, “Creating Effective Policies for Cus-
tomer Service,” International Journal of Physical distri-
bution and Materials Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1983,
pp. 3-24.
[11] P. R. Murphy and J. M. Daley, “A Framework for Ap-
plying Logistical Segmentation,” International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24,
No. 10, 1994, pp. 13-19.
doi:10.1108/09600039410074764
[12] M. A. McGinnis, “Segmenting Freight Markets,” Trans-
portation, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1978, pp. 58-68.
[13] P. Gilmour, G. Borg, P. A. Duffy, et al., “Customer Ser-
vice: Differentiating by Market Segment,” International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics manage-
ment, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1995, pp.18-23.
doi:10.1108/09600039410757603
[14] T. V. Bonoma and B. P. Shapiro, “Segmenting the Indus-
trial Market,” Lexington Books, Lexington, 1983.
[15] C.-S. Lu, “Market Segment Evaluation and International
Distribution Centers,” Transportation Research Part E,
Vol. 39, No. 1, 2003, pp. 49-60.
doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00022-4
[16] C.-S. Lu and K.-C. Shang, “An Empirical Investigation of
Safety Climate in Container Terminal Operators,” Jour-
nal of Safety Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2005, pp. 297-308.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2005.05.002
[17] C.-S. Lu, K.-H. Lai and T. C. E. Cheng, “An Evaluation
of Web Site Services in Liner Shipping in Taiwan,”
Transportation, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2005, pp. 293-318.
doi:10.1007/s11116-004-8245-8
[18] G. A. Churchill, “Marketing Research: Methodological
Foundation,” 5th Edition, Dryden Press, New York, 1991.
[19] D. R. Cooper, C. W. Emory, “Business Research Meth-
ods,” 5th Edition, Irwin, 1995.
[20] A. I. Glendon and D. K. Litherland, “Safety Climate Fac-
tors, Group Differences and Safety Behavior in Road
Construction,” Safety Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2001, pp.
157-188. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00006-6
[21] B. E. Hayes, J. Perander and T. Smecko, “Measuring
Perceptions of Workplace Safety: Development and
Validation of the Work Safety Scale,” Journal of Safety
Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1998, pp. 145-161.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00011-5
[22] K. Mearns, S. M. Whitaker and R. Flin, “Safety Climate,
safety Management Practice and Safety Performance in
Offshore Environments,” Safety Science, Vol. 41, No. 3,
2003, pp. 641-680. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00011-5
[23] J. Hair, R. Anderson and R. Tatham, “Multivariate Data
Analysis with Readings,” 4th Edition, Prentice Hall In-
ternational, Englewood Chiffs, 1995.
[24] J. O. Kim and C. W. Muller, “Introduction to Factor
Analysis What It is and How to Do It,” Quantitative Ap-
plications in the Social Sciences University Paper, 1978.
[25] J. C. Nunnally, “Psychometric Theory,” 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
[26] U. Sekaran, “Research Methods for Business,” 2nd Edi-
tion, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1992.

An Empirical Study of Container Terminal’s Service Attributes 109
[27] M. R. Brooks, “Ocean Carrier Selection Criteria in a New
Environment,” Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol.
26, No. 4, 1990, pp. 339-356.
[28] S. M. Matear and R. Gray, “Factors Influencing Freight
Service Choice for Shippers and Freight Suppliers,” In-
ternational Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1993, pp. 25-35.
[29] R. H. Chiu, “Logistics Performance of Liner Shipping in
Taiwan,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Maritime
Studies and International Transport, College of Cardiff,
University of Wales, 1996.
[30] C.-S. Lu, “Logistics Services in Taiwanese Maritime
Firms,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2000, pp. 79-96.
doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(99)00022-8