dissertation (Dr. Myo NA)

Strategic Policy Decisions

for the Development of the Port Logistics Sectors

in Myanmar

Supervisor: Professor Ryoo, Dong-Keun

By

Myo Nyein Aye

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Korea Maritime

University in partial completion of the requirements for the degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

June 2013

i

Table of Contents

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. iii

Lists of Figures ..............................................................................................................v

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter1: Introduction ..................................................................................................1

1.1 Research Background and Objective .............................................................2

1.2 Research Scope..............................................................................................3

1.3 Methodology and Structure ...........................................................................4

Chapter 2: Port Logistics Industry in Myanmar.............................................................6

2.1 Background Information of Myanmar ...........................................................6

2.2 Logistics Performance of Myanmar...............................................................7

2.3 Port Industry in Myanmar ............................................................................ 10

2.3.1 Historical Background of Port Industry ............................................... 11

2.4 Port Management in Myanmar .................................................................... 15

2.5 Current Situation of Port Industry................................................................ 18

2.5.1 Yangon Port and Its Terminals ............................................................ 19

2.5.2 Vessels/ Cargo Throughput/ Container Handling ................................ 22

2.5.3 Development of the Thilawa Port Area ............................................... 25

2.5.4 Extension of Yangon Port .................................................................... 28

2.5.5 Improving the Yangon River Access Channel ..................................... 29

2.5.6 Future Development of Thilawa Area.................................................. 31

2.5.7 Structure Reform in Port Organization ................................................ 32

2.5.8 National Logistics Association and Port Activities .............................. 33

2.6 Regional Port Cooperation .......................................................................... 34

2.6.1 Cooperation as a Member of ASEAN Ports Association (APA) .......... 34

2.6.2 Cooperation with JICA ........................................................................ 36

2.6.3 MOU with Japan for Transportation Sector ......................................... 37

2.6.4 Other Cooperation Activities ............................................................... 38

Chapter 3: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 39

3.1 Conceptual Definition of Port Governance and Logistics ............................ 39

3.1.1 Port Governance and Management ...................................................... 39

3.1.2 Port Related Logistics .......................................................................... 40

3.2 Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) ................................... 42

3.3 Previous Research using AHP ..................................................................... 46

ii

Chapter 4: Research Methodology .............................................................................. 49

4.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) .............................................................. 49

4.1.1 AHP Concept ....................................................................................... 49

4.1.2 AHP Procedures .................................................................................. 51

4.1.3 AHP Methodology ............................................................................... 52

4.2 Selection of Priority Factors ........................................................................ 56

4.2.1 Port Infrastructure ................................................................................ 57

4.2.2 Port Regulations .................................................................................. 57

4.2.3 Manpower Development in Port Sector ............................................... 58

4.2.4 Current Structural Reform in Myanmar Port ....................................... 58

4.2.5 Establishment of a National level Logistics Association (NLA) .......... 58

4.3 Procedure for the Pilot Survey ..................................................................... 59

4.4 Classification of Evaluation Factors ............................................................ 60

4.4.1 Factor Specification ............................................................................. 61

Chapter 5: Analysis ..................................................................................................... 66

5.1 Analytic Hierarchic Structure Model ........................................................... 66

5.2 Questionnaire Survey .................................................................................. 66

5.3 Results of AHP Analysis ............................................................................. 71

5.3.1 All Respondents (All Groups) ............................................................. 72

5.3.2 Terminal Operators Group ................................................................... 73

5.3.2 Port Users Group ................................................................................. 75

5.3.3 Administration Staff Officers Group ................................................... 77

5.3.4 Comparison among Groups on Main Criteria ...................................... 78

5.3.5 Comparison among Groups on Sub-criteria ......................................... 80

5.3.6 Synthesis of Importance of All Factors ................................................ 86

Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................................................................................. 88

6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 88

6.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 90

6.3 Future Research ........................................................................................... 91

References ................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix 1: Pilot Survey ............................................................................................ 96

Appendix 2: List of Participants for Pilot Survey ...................................................... 100

Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................ 102

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Logistics Performance Index for Myanmar and Selected Countries, 2010 ..... 8

Table 2: Wharves and Terminals at Yangon Port (including Thilawa Area) .............. 21

Table 3: Number of Vessels Calling into Yangon Port

(Including Thilawa Terminals) ..................................................................... 22

Table 4: Seaborne Trade of the Yangon Port (including Thilawa) ............................. 23

Table 5: Volume of Containers Handled by Yangon Port (including Thilawa) .......... 24

Table 6: Current Status of Development and Usage of Terminals in Thilawa Area ... 28

Table 7: Strategic Schedule for the Development of Maritime Transport in ASEAN 35

Table 8: Examples of Research using AHP ................................................................ 48

Table 9: Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers .................................................... 52

Table 10: Important Elements Identified from the Pilot Survey ................................. 61

Table 11: Respondents from the Terminal Operator Group ....................................... 68

Table 12: Respondents from the Port User Group ...................................................... 69

Table 13: Respondents from the Administration Staff Group .................................... 70

Table 14: Survey Details of Respondents ................................................................... 71

Table 15: Comparison of Group-wise Results on Main Criteria ................................. 79

Table 16: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Port Related Infrastructure”......... 81

Table 17: Comparison of Group-wise Results on

“Port Regulations Related to Logistics” ..................................................... 82

Table 18: Comparison of Group-wise Results on

“Human Resources Development in Port Sector” ..................................... 83

Table 19: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Port Structural Reform” .............. 84

Table 20: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Contribution of Port Activities

in Establishment of National Level Logistics Association” ........................ 85

v

Lists of Figures

Figure 1: Research Process Onion ................................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Map of the Republic of Union of Myanmar .................................................. 6

Figure 3: Correlation between LPI and Income per Capita .......................................... 9

Figure 4: Myanmar’s LPI Scores.................................................................................. 9

Figure 5: Yangon Port and Strand Road in 1878 ........................................................ 11

Figure 6: Yangon Port and Port tower at Port Authority main building in 1938 ........ 13

Figure 7: Organization structure of Myanma Port Authority ...................................... 16

Figure 8: Ports of Myanmar ....................................................................................... 18

Figure 9: Yangon River Estuary ................................................................................. 20

Figure 10: Number of Vessels Calling into Yangon Port (2001-02 to 2011-12) ........ 23

Figure 11: Seaborne Trade of the Yangon Port (including Thilawa)

(2001-02 to 2011-12) ................................................................................ 24

Figure 12: Volume of Containers Handled by Yangon Port (including Thilawa) (by

TEU in thousands) (2000-01 to 2011-12) ................................................. 25

Figure 13: Map of Yangon Port and Thilawa Port...................................................... 26

Figure 14: 37 Plots for the Thilawa Port Development Plan ...................................... 27

Figure 15: Current and Potential Port Areas at Yangon City ...................................... 29

Figure 16: Yangon River Estuary ............................................................................... 30

Figure 17: Draft Schedule to Improve Access along the Yangon River ..................... 31

Figure 18: Intended Organization Structure of Myanma Port Authority .................... 33

Figure 19: 47 Network Ports in ASEAN ................................................................... 36

Figure 20: Drivers of Port Reform ............................................................................. 39

Figure 21: AHP Standard Structure ............................................................................ 50

Figure 22: AHP Structure for Optimizing of the Priority ........................................... 51

Figure 23: Research Structure .................................................................................... 56

Figure 24: Analytic Hierarchic Structure for the Study .............................................. 66

Figure 25: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (All Respondents) .............. 72

Figure 26: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (All Respondents) ........ 73

Figure 27: Instant synthesis with Respect to the Goal (All Respondents) .................. 73

Figure 28: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Terminal Operators) ......... 74

Figure 29: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Terminal Operators) ... 74

vi

Figure 30: Instant Synthesis with Respect to the Goal (Terminal Operators) ............. 75

Figure 31: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Port Users) ....................... 76

Figure 32: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Port Users) ................. 76

Figure 33: Instant Synthesis with respect to the Goal (Port Users) ............................. 77

Figure 34: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Administration Staff)........ 77

Figure 35: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Administration Staff).. 78

Figure 36: Instant Synthesis with respect to the Goal (Administration Staff) ............. 78

Figure 37: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons on Main Criteria

(Normalized Value) .................................................................................. 80

Figure 38: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Related Infrastructure


Figure 39: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Regulations related to

Logistics (Normalized Value) ................................................................... 82

Figure 40: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Human Resources

Developments in Port Sector (Normalized Value) .................................... 84

Figure 41: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Structural Reform


Figure 42: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Contribution of Port

Activities in Establishment of NLA (Normalized Value) ......................... 86

Figure 43: Synthesis Importance of All Factors ......................................................... 87

vii

Acknowledgements

There are many people who have helped me in a myriad of ways to complete

my PhD study in Korea Maritime University (KMU).

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor,

Professor Dr. Dong-Keun Ryoo, Division of Shipping Management, who is my

advisor, mentor, wise counsel and good guardian for his commitment, time, and giving

me the opportunity to carry out this study with unwavering support over the past three

years. I would also like to thank my examination committee members, Prof. Lee, Ki-

Hwan, Prof. Chang, Myung-Hee, Prof. Kim, Tae-Goun and Prof. Kang, Hyun-Goo

for their guidance and support throughout this process.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Land,

Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM), Republic of Korea for its valuable

scholarship to study under the “Shipping, Port and International Logistics program”. I

extend my great appreciation to Myanma Port Authority (MPA), Ministry of Transport,

Republic of the Union of Myanmar which is the mother unit for my work and allowed

me the chance to study for this PhD outside the country for three years. I am also

grateful to Prof. Nam, Ki-Chan from the Department of Logistics who provided me

with good facilities and study environment.

I sincerely thank my friends and colleagues who unreservedly supported and

encouraged me during my study and research years. Also big thanks to all the

wonderful support in various ways of internship and for the research study, in

particular, U Ko Ko Htoo (MIP), Capt. Bag (KTM), Ko Moe (AMOE), Capt. Aung

(MIFFA), Dr. Tengfei (UNESCAP), Ma Mee (MKH), Ko Kyaw Lwin Oo (EFR), U

Tin Oo (AWPT), Dr. Lee (KMI), Ko Tint (MPA), U Naing (HNN), Kyaw Wanna

(WMU), Dr. Lin (DOT), May Oo (Ocean Crown), Young Joon (KMU), Ms. Kang

(KMU), Arom (KMU), Mr. Kim (Marine Future), Dr. Park (PNU) and John Askwith.

Moreover, my deepest gratitude goes to my beloved Mum whose expectations

have always been a strong driving force in my tough days during the study, my wife

viii

Puti and our wonderful two daughters, Tsu and Pyae, for their love, understanding,

patience and being who they are.

ix

초록

미얀마의 항만물류와 무역량은 2011 년 새로 선출된 정부의 새 정책을

반영함으로 인해 증가할 전망이다. 국가의 사회 경제적 상황 및 물류성과

향상의 핵심 목표는 해운 공급망 개발을 촉진하기 위해 항만산업을 개발하는

것이다. 항만물류는 이러한 목표를 달성하기 위해 개선되어야 할 핵심요소 중

하나이다.

본 연구의 목적은 항만 관련 산업과 물류 발전에 영향을 미치는 최적의

전략 및 정책 결정 개발 및 실현에 그 목적이 있다. 이러한 목표 달성을 위해

다음과 같은 구체적인 목표를 설정하였다. : (a) 미래 물류 개발을 위한 미얀마

항만 관리를 위한 최적의 전략 및 정책을 검토한다. (b) 미얀마 항만산업과

관련된 물류 성과를 위해 지역 및 국제물류 개발을 위한 더 나은 기회를

창출한다. (c) 미얀마 항만물류 활성화 전략 및 정책 결정시 고려해야 할 우선

순위를 산정한다. 이러한 목표를 달성하기 위해 본 연구의 목적은 미얀마에서

항만관련 분야의 물류 발전 측면에서 최적의 성과를 제공하는 요인들의

우선순위에 초점을 맞추고 있다.

본 연구에서 적용되는 주요 방법론은 계층분석의사결정법(AHP)이다.

분석 시 고려된 주요 항목은 . (a) 물류성과를 위한 항만관련 시설 (b) 물류관련

항만 법규 (c) 항만분야 인적자원 개발 (d) 현재 항만 구조 재편 (e)

국제물류협회(NLA) 창설 등이 있다.

각각의 항목은 다시 하위 기준으로 세분화 하였다. 각 항목에서 가장

중요한 세 가지 요소를 얻기 위해 15 개국 41 명을 대상으로 예비조사를

수행하였고 , 이에 따라 다섯가지 주요 기준과 다섯 가지 하위 기준은 AHP

모델의 구조로 통합하였다.

설문은 터미널 운영사, 항만 이용사, 항만관리국의 임직원을 대상으로 세

그룹으로 나누어 진행되었다. 분석 결과 모든 그룹에 대한 최적의 성과를

얻으려면, 첫째 전략 및 항만물류를 향상시키기 위한 핵심 정책으로서의 정책

x

결정은 구조개혁을 기반으로 항만을 조직해야 한다. 둘째 정책 결정의 초점을

국제물류협회(NLA)의 설립에 맞춰져야 하며 항만과 항만관련 산업의 내부 인적

자원 개발이 동시에 수행되어야 한다. 그 후 항만 산업은 고급 인프라가

구축되어야 하고 모든 관련 활동을 올바른 법적 프레임워크 내에서 개발해야 할

필요가 있다. 또한 항만 관련 법규 및 규정을 명확하게 명시하고 모든 당사자에

의해 쉽게 접근될 수 있어야 한다. 명시된 규정의 조합은 미얀마 항만물류

부문의 정책 결정에 있어 최적의 성과를 얻기 위해 개발 될 것이다.

xi

Abstract

Logistics related transport and trade in Myanmar will improve in the near

future as the country is on a new track under the newly elected government following

elections in 2011. One of the key elements necessary to improve the country’s socio-

economic situation, and level of logistics performance, will be to reform the port

industry to facilitate development of the maritime transport supply chain. Port related

logistics is one of the core factors to be improved to achieve this goal.

The objective of this research is to contribute significant information that can

be useful in the development and implementation of the optimal strategic and policy

decisions affecting logistics development in port related industries. To achieve this

general objective, the following specific objectives were set: (a) to examine the

optimal strategic and policy decisions for port governance in Myanmar for future

logistics development; (b) to highlight implications of logistics related port industry

activities in Myanmar in order to create better opportunities for regional and

international trade development; and (c) to prioritize factors to be considered when

making strategic and policy decisions that will enhance the port related logistics

sectors in Myanmar. The research is focused on prioritizing the factors which will

provide the optimal outcome in terms of logistics development of the port related

sectors in Myanmar.

The main methodology applied in this research is Analytical Hierarchy

Process (AHP). Under this analysis the major criteria considered are: (a) port-related

infrastructure for the logistics activities; (b) port regulations related to logistics, (c)

human resource development in the port sector; (d) current port structural reform in

Myanmar; and (e) contribution of port activities in establishing a National Logistics

Association (NLA). Each and every element consists of many factors which have been

considered as sub-criteria in this study. A pilot survey was carried out to get the three

most important factors under each topic. The final five main criteria and fifteen sub-

criteria have been incorporated into the structure of the AHP model. The number of

respondents in the pilot survey was 41 persons from 15 different countries.

xii

Three audience groups: terminal operators, port users and administration level

officers were targeted. To get the optimal benefits for all the groups, the strategic and

policy decisions should be based on port organization structural reform as a core

policy to enhance the port related logistics sectors. Secondly, the policy decisions

should focus on the establishment of the National Logistics Association (NLA) while

internal human resources development of the port and port related industries should be

carried out simultaneously. After that, the port industry has to be built up with more

advanced infrastructure and all the associated activities need to be developed correctly

and within a legal framework. Port-related rules and regulations should be laid down

clearly and be easily accessible by all parties. The combination of the criteria will be

developed to obtain the optimal policy decisions that will enhance the port-related

logistics sectors in Myanmar.

- 1 -

Chapter1: Introduction

The port industry in Myanmar has radically changed over the past two

decades. During the 1990s (especially in the second half of the 1990s), the first wave

of modernizing Yangon port and initiating private sector involvement in the port

industry in Myanmar began. Since the year 2000 there has been dramatic change to

the ports with the planning of the potential deep sea ports projects, increasing the

degree of private participation in port sectors, development of the port-related

activities and better relationships and closer cooperation between the regional port and

transport related organizations. At the beginning of 2011, the political situation in

Myanmar turned in a better direction, led by a new reformed and elected government.

The port sector is one of the important sectors which drives the national economy, and

it needs to be structurally reformed according to the new requirements of the Republic

of the Union of Myanmar.

Myanmar has been one of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) for more

than two and half decades (since 1987 up to now) according to the UN’s classification.

Myanmar is also a member of Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) and

is one of the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) countries. According to the trade

statistics of ASEAN, Myanmar is in the lowest position for international trade and

maritime trade amongst the ASEAN member countries (except Lao PDR1). Among

the regional neighboring countries, the quality of the logistics facilities in Myanmar is

comparatively low according to the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) determined by

World Bank (World Bank, n.d.).

According to the UN’s official projections, Myanmar is in an “excellent

position” to graduate from LDC status by 2020, in part because of the country’s

strategic location in a region which is driving the global economy (Myanmar Business

Network, 2011). The newly elected Myanmar president launched a series of reforms

after taking office in 2011 and the World Bank East Asia and Pacific Vice-President

stated “All in all, we believe the country has enormous potential, provided the reforms

1 Lao PDR is the only land locked country within ASEAN member countries.

- 2 -

are sustained” (AFP, 2013). All these predictions will come true if the right choices

and better implementation of the strategic and policy decisions to reform and develop

every sector are made. Optimal strategic and policy decisions are fundamental

requirements for the development of the country.

1.1 Research Background and Objective

Maritime trade is a vital portion of the country’s trade and needless to say

good policies for the maritime sector can lead to better development of the country’s

maritime related activities. Among all players in the transport chains, ports are

confronted with changing economic and logistics systems (Notteboom, T. 2007).

Notteboom also noted that port authorities and port management teams have to re-

assess their role and related governance structures to make significant improvements.

The current situation of the transport players and the existing scenario for the

port industry in Myanmar are the main driving forces to undertake this research.

To achieve the all-round development goal of the country, each and every

industry has to make its own improvements and be better integrated with other related

industries. To get the right balance in the development of all industries, correct policy

making is one of the fundamental needs. Actually, policy making is largely controlled

by the administrative authorities of each respective industry (Meersman, Van de

Voorde & Vanelslander, 2007).

There is increasing concern about the relationships between private logistics

strategies and public interests and policies. To get better national competitive power,

National Logistics Performance (NLP) is the core of the system (Serhat, B., Harun, S.,

2011). Moreover, port logistics will be a vital component. This dissertation intends to

contribute useful information for the building and implementation of optimal strategic

and policy decisions affecting the logistics development of port related industries.

The main purposes of the study are;

• To examine the optimal strategic and policy decisions for port governance in

Myanmar affecting future logistics development;

- 3 -

• To highlight the importance of logistics related activities to the port industry

in Myanmar in order to create better opportunities for regional and

international trade development; and

• To prioritize possible factors to consider for the strategic and policy decisions

to enhance the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar.

1.2 Research Scope

This research is focused on prioritizing the factors which will contribute to the

optimization of the logistics development of port related sectors in Myanmar. In

reality, there is a broad view on logistics development of port related sectors but in

this study only some aspects of port related logistics (five categories) have been

analysed to contribute to a possible strategic policy.

The first three categories are port related infrastructure, regulations and man

power development. These factors will be extracted from current data on Yangon port,

regional experiences of ports (discussed in the literature review) and potential issues

related to the future development of port related logistics. Within these three

categories, all possible items have to be prioritized by international port and logistics

experts and officials with practical experience from the local port industry.

The additional two categories relate to recent port reforms that will enhance

participation of the private sector in the port industry. Myanma Port Authority (MPA)

has been encouraging greater participation of the private sector to provide broader

service and facilitation. This study will cover only the logistics related parts of the

reform process and the structure of it. Last but not least the study will identify how the

port sector can contribute to the establishment of a National Logistics Association that

will meet regional development needs.

- 4 -

1.3 Methodology and Structure

This study is divided into the following 6 parts:

Chapter 1: An introduction covering the research background, purpose,

methodology and structure of the study.

Chapter 2: The port industry in Myanmar – historical background to the port

industry in Myanmar, evolution of port management and administration,

the current situation of the port industry, brief overviews of port

activities and operations, current situation about privatization of the

ports, recent port organization structural reform of Myanma Port

Authority (MPA), current status of port activities relating to the

establishment of a National Logistics Associations (NLA), and regional

cooperation activities of the MPA.

Chapter 3: Relevant literature reviews on port policy and strategic decisions related

to logistics, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and examples of

applications and studies on policy related matter using AHP.

Chapter 4: Research methodology of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

including AHP conceptual framework, and AHP procedures and

techniques to prioritize relevant factors. Selection of priority factors has

to be carried out as a part of the research methodology to construct an

AHP model.

Chapter 5: Constructing the AHP structural model using the experts selected items

for each main category, the questionnaires used with the target

designated audiences, the responses and subsequent analysis using AHP.

Through these actions prioritize factors affecting the strategic and

policy decisions to enhance the port related logistics industry in

Myanmar.

Chapter 6: Conclusions & Recommendations on the results of the study and

suggestions for future study

- 5 -

According to the research process onion for this study (shown in Figure 1),

identifying the optimal plan for the logistics development for port related sectors in

Myanmar starts from a literature review as the core technique and procedure. A pilot

study will follow the literature review to scope down possible factors to be

incorporated into questionnaires. Construction of the AHP model, collecting the data

using questionnaires, interviews and surveys, and analysis follow. Finally, pragmatism

will be drawn out from the analysis and results of the study.

Figure 1: Research Process Onion

- 6 -

Chapter 2: Port Logistics Industry in Myanmar

2.1 Background Information of Myanmar

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar is situated in South East Asia and it is

the largest country in the region with a total land area of 677,000 square kilometers

(261,228 square miles) ranging 936 kilometers (581 miles) from east to west and 2051

kilometers (1275 miles) from north to south. Myanmar has a long coastline at her

south-western part, 2,228 kilometers (1385 miles) in length.

Figure 2: Map of the Republic of Union of Myanmar

Source: www.un.org

http://www.un.org/

- 7 -

Regarding the inland area, there are 5 neighboring countries along the total

length of the 6158 kilometers (3828.2 miles) border, namely Bangladesh, India, China,

Lao PDR and Thailand. The location of Myanmar is as shown in Figure 2.

Myanmar is geographically situated in the most western part of ASEAN

(especially for the continental countries of ASEAN). Along the coastline of Myanmar,

there are 9 ports for coastal and international maritime traffic. Among them, the Port

of Yangon is the premier port of Myanmar and currently handles about 90 % of the

country's normal exports and imports. Cargo throughput using Yangon port has been

increasing markedly each year. Yangon port is a river port and Yangon city has been

predominantly a port city since the British conquered Myanmar. The organizational

structure and administration of the port management and operations have been

changed from time to time.

After reform of the political system and the newly elected government took

power in 2011, much progress can be seen such as improved international

relationships with other countries, international economic sanctions have been lifted,

the banking and financial system has been reformed, and many local and international

workshops and seminars about reform and development of various sectors of the

economy have been held. Analysts from the Asia Development Bank (ADB) say that

Myanmar’s economy can triple in size by 2030 if sufficient reforms are undertaken in

the coming years2. The newly elected government is encouraging the development of

all sectors and international investors are also interested in starting their business

investments in Myanmar.

2.2 Logistics Performance of Myanmar

Regarding the logistics performance of the country one perspective comes

from the World Bank’s logistics performance index (LPI) in which a higher value up

to 5 indicates better performance. Table 1 shows the LPI index list for Myanmar and

selected countries for year 2010. The LPI consists of both descriptive and objective

2 The Irrawaddy: Burma’s Economy Can Triple by 2030: ADB, BY SIMON ROUGHNEEN

on August 21, 2012 retrieved from http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/

http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/

- 8 -

measures and has three parts: perceptions of trading partners on each country’s

logistics environment, information on the logistics environment, and real time-cost

performance data.

Table 1: Logistics Performance Index for Myanmar and Selected Countries, 2010

Int.

LP

I R

an

k

Cou

ntr

y

LP

I

Cu

stom

s

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

Inte

rnati

on

al

ship

men

ts

Logis

tics

com

pet

ence

Tra

ckin

g &

traci

ng

Tim

elin

ess

27 China 3.49 3.16 3.54 3.31 3.49 3.55 3.91

35 Thailand 3.29 3.02 3.16 3.27 3.16 3.41 3.73

47 India 3.12 2.7 2.91 3.13 3.16 3.14 3.61

53 Vietnam 2.96 2.68 2.56 3.04 2.89 3.1 3.44

79 Bangladesh 2.74 2.33 2.49 2.99 2.44 2.64 3.46

118 Lao PDR 2.46 2.17 1.95 2.7 2.14 2.45 3.23

129 Cambodia 2.37 2.28 2.12 2.19 2.29 2.5 2.84

133 Myanmar 2.33 1.94 1.92 2.37 2.01 2.36 3.29

Source: World Bank, Logistics Performance Index,

(http://www1.worldbank.org/PREM/LPI/tradesurvey/mode1b.asp)

According to the index data in Table 1, China is ranked 27th and highest

amongst Myanmar’s neighboring countries and Thailand is ranked 35th

in the world,

while Myanmar is the weakest country (with 133rd

ranking), below Lao PDR and

Cambodia.

According to the ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan 2011-2015 (Final report),

the LPI index for Myanmar (which has a low GNI per capita) is located below the

curve as shown in Figure 3. The graph shows that Myanmar has lower logistics

performance than others in its income group. The key issue pointed out in that report

is that the trade and transport supply chain of Myanmar (Lao PDR and Cambodia as

well) is only as strong as its weakest link. This situation is one of the major challenges

for AMSs and they have to find out how to support these low performing countries so

they can benefit from a global trading system. Accordingly Myanmar needs to make

http://www1.worldbank.org/PREM/LPI/tradesurvey/mode1b.asp

- 9 -

substantial improvements in logistics competence, processes, and business practices in

the trade and transport industries, including the port sector.

Figure 3: Correlation between LPI and Income per Capita

Source: ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan 2011-2015 (Final report)

Figure 4: Myanmar’s LPI Scores

Source: ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan 2011-2015 (Final report)

- 10 -

Moreover, as the ASEAN Strategic Transport Plan 2011-2015 (Final report)

shows, logistics related performance indicators for Myanmar are far below ASEAN

and world averages (Figure 4)3. The report highlighted weak logistics competence,

poor logistics quality, and undeveloped infrastructure as being major constraints in

Myanmar. Also, the availability and quality of trade-related infrastructure seems a

major constraint to the overall economic performance of Myanmar.

Since 2011 Myanmar has been on a new track under the newly elected

government. Improvements can be seen including better international relationships,

aid from international institutions, and restructuring of the internal and external affairs

of the country. Logistics related transport and trade will also improve in the near

future. One of the major initiatives to improve the country’s socio-economic situation

and level of logistics performance is to reform the port industry and develop the

maritime transport supply chain. Moreover, logistics performance is not simply an

issue of national income or development – national government policy heavily

influences this issue (Mustra, M., 2011). In this regard, port related logistics is one of

the core factors to be improved to increase the pace of achieving the goals.

2.3 Port Industry in Myanmar

Economic development of a country partially depends on how its ports are

providing their logistics services to their users and customers, because ports are

playing a vital role in promoting not only external trade but also regional transport

linkages for commercial and industrial activities. Thus, the ports and port related

logistics sectors need to develop in tandem with the overall development of a country.

As Yangon port is the major port of Myanmar, it is required to develop in line

with the growth in external trade. In this study, the background history of Yangon port

is the historical background of the port industry in Myanmar. Evolution of port

management in Myanmar, brief views on the current situation of the port industry and

regional cooperation in the port sector are discussed.

3 Source: ERIA Study Team, based on data quoted from “Logistics Performance Index 2010”

Note: World average and ASEAN average were calculated as simple arithmetic averages.

- 11 -

2.3.1 Historical Background of Port Industry

Yangon Port became famous, starting from the time when King Ahlaungpaya

took over Dagon in 1755, changing its name to Yangon and morphing it into a port

city. During the regime of Myanmar Kings, the mayor ruled the port, appointed the

pilots and raised taxes on cargoes loaded or unloaded on board. This historical fact

shows that the port has been a vital part of the country’s development throughout time.

In 1852 the British seized lower Myanmar and the port administration also

changed in a variety of ways. On demand of the traders, the Yangon Port

Commissioner Act was passed in 1879. Yangon Port was managed in the form of an

organization from 1 January 1880 till the Second World War.

Under the British government, Yangon Port gradually developed over 61

years from 1880 to 1940. It successfully handled the loading and unloading of over 5

million tons of imports and exports until 1939-40 when the Second World War broke

out. At that time Yangon port was renowned as the best port not only in Asia but in

the Far East. When the board of Yangon Port Commissioners started running the Port

administration and authority in 1880, there were Pansodan, Sule and Lattalan estuaries

and 6 jetties for the trading ships to berth.

Figure 5: Yangon Port and Strand Road in 1878

Source: Myanma Port Authority

- 12 -

During the 19th

Century, the number of estuaries increased to 10 for the ships

to be accommodated at Yangon port. As the commercial trade sector developed the

Port management extended estuaries for in-land vessels, built depots, and placed

buoys to which the ships can be tied, Pilot buoys and beacons were constructed as well.

Figure 5 shows a picture of Yangon port in 1878.

Although extension for the sea routes was accomplished, the next plan was

drawn to further extend the port at the beginning of the 20th Century due to a lack of

port machinery conforming to the requirements for the commercial trade of Yangon

Port. There were five main tasks for the development of the port and related activities.

These were (i) extension of depots, (ii) establishment of estuaries for the trading ships

to stop by, (iii) installation of hydraulic machinery and electricity, (iv) prevention of

river banks from being washed away, dredging the harbor, constructing water-tight

dock-yards and (v) clearing the drains that sank below the surface of the sea. After

carrying out those tasks, there were estuaries with a total length of 4215 feet in 1914

when World War I started. The storage area increased to 407,000 square feet,

sufficient for the commercial trade of Yangon Port.

One great task, accomplished in 1914 before the war broke out, was the

building of a protective wall along the watercourse of the river in Hseikkyee, on the

opposite side to Yangon port across the river. That protective wall along the river

watercourse had a length of 2.5 miles and it was the biggest action taken in the world

to protect a river water course at that time.

In 1920, after the conclusion of World War I, port development projects

resumed again. The Port Authority’s main building was built in 1926. In 1928, the

Thamada river retaining wall was built as a protection task at the downstream end of

the Yangon river and there was continuous construction of a range of estuaries from

No.1 Sule4 Wharf to No.7 wharf. Brooken

5 wharf No.1 and 2 were built in 1939.

4 Nowadays, Sule Wharf No. 1 to 7 has been still as a public port under the direct management

of Myanma Port Authority 5 Nowadays, the new name of the Brooken Wharf is Boaungkyaw Street Wharf (BSW) which

is private property under the management of Lan Pe Marine Company.

- 13 -

Before World War II spread to Myanmar, Sule wharves No. 1, 2 and 3 were restored

to meet standards and No.4 Sule Wharf was built in 1940.

Figure 6: Yangon Port and Port tower at Port Authority main building in 1938


Before the outbreak of World War II, Yangon Port alone could handle 85% of

the whole country's maritime trade by sea. At that time, there were 9 wharves (2 in

Brooken area and 7 in Sule area) with handling equipment of 41 cranes (1.5 tonnes to

3 tonnes capacity). In addition there was an electric crane capable of lifting cargo

weighing 40 tonnes at No. 1 Brooken wharf. The main export commodity was rice,

representing half the value of total exports. Rice was carried by cargo barges or barges

attached to the side of a steamer and loaded on board vessels that stopped in mid-river.

There were 30 buoys along the Yangon river to which the trading vessels could be

moored. There were also 5 pontoon piers each 250 feet in length and 27 small pontoon

piers where goods carried along the sea routes could be loaded or unloaded

temporarily. The 24 jetties were not attached to pontoon bridges. The capacity for

loading and unloading was about 4000 tonnes per day for imports and about 11,000

tonnes per day for export cargo. In addition 3 separate buoys were provided for fuel

oil container vessels to meet the needs of local consumption.

- 14 -

Regarding the sustainable water draft of the Yangon river for the vessels, there

was one vessel to pump the mud from the river, one dredger and another V-shaped

dredger. Every year, approximately 5 million tonnes of mud could be dredged by them.

When World War II broke out, Yangon port was destroyed by British troops

before they receded from Myanmar. During the war, the allied forces bombarded

Yangon Port and it remained as one of the destroyed ports in the east of the world. The

wharves and other port facilities were also destroyed, while 7 out of 10 temporary

depots and all the buoys of Yangon river were damaged.

After Myanmar was seized again by the allied forces, the task of rehabilitating

the port was given priority. Nixon Storage Fragments (NSF), military utilities and

attached P.C pontoons were immediately carried along the Yangon river and new

warehouses (Godowns) were built along the port where pontoon barges were installed.

After clearing the torpedoes, a new route was opened and the task of port loading and

unloading was resumed. In 1950, the NSF warehouses and pontoons attached to them

started to decay and they had to be replaced with more durable materials.

To fulfill the needs of the port, Economic Co-operation Aid (ECA) in the form

of money and materials was accepted. The materials included steel pontoons, steel

spanning bridges, mobile storage, cargo-handling devices (cranes, draught-machines

and trailers) and other machinery.

Although ECA provided temporary support to Yangon port, port machinery

remained un-repaired in 1956. In particular, Sule Wharves No.5, 6 and 7 destroyed in

the war had not been restored. There were only 6 estuaries, insufficient to execute the

port services. After getting a loan of US$ 14 million from the World Bank, port

facilities equipment was purchased such as various cargo-handling devices, 1 dredger,

2 diesel draught-vessels, 2 buoy- dropping vessels,1 beacon, and 1 pilot vessel.

In 1962, after the Revolutionary Government took power, the tasks of the port

became more extensive than before. The administration of outside port cities, formerly

under the control of Divisional Commissioners was handed over to the Yangon Port

Authority on 20 August 1962. Privately–owned R.R.Khan's Water-tight dockyard and

- 15 -

Bombay Burma Company owned by Antgyi Dockyard were handed over in 1964 and

1968 respectively. To speed up the loading and unloading service of ocean-liners, the

stevedoring group of the ocean-liners and the group of port labourers were

administrated in co-operation with Yangon Port. As the task of supplying fresh water

to the trading ships that entered Yangon Port was an essential port service the Fresh

Water Supply Service of Eastern Bankara (Myanmarpyi) Ltd was handed over in 1970.

In 1972, the sub-department of light-houses under the Government Marine

Department, and Coal Corporation under the Trade Corporation were handed over as

was the Transportation Agent Corporation with control in co-operation with Yangon

Port in 1997.

2.4 Port Management in Myanmar

According to the ever changing history of Yangon port, the chronological

order of changes to the administration body of port management has been as below:

1852 - Marine Chief Officer took charge of Yangon Port

1876 - handed over to the Committee of the River Bank

1880 - the Board of Yangon Port Commissioners took charge

1954 - handed over to Yangon Port Authority

1972 - reorganized as Port Corporation

1989 - reformed as Myanma Port Authority.

Myanma Port Authority has the authority to manage all ports in Myanmar

which are divided into two categories; namely Yangon Port and external ports (which

are all the other coastal ports of Myanmar and called out ports as well).

There are 8 departments, 4 divisions and 4 state/division external port offices

in Myanma Port Authority’s organization structure as shown in Figure 7.

- 16 -

Figure 7: Organization structure of Myanma Port Authority


Each department has a principal officer (head of department) who is

responsible to the Managing Director as follows;

(a) Traffic Department: The main responsibility of this department is

accepting imported goods from the vessels docking at the piers owned by

the department, delivering goods and loading the ships. It is also

responsible for leasing out buildings, shops and plots of land within the

port.

(b) Shipping Agency Department: This department provides services of a

shipping agency instead of a ship's owner or a person in charge of a ship.

(c) Marine Department: This department manages navigable channels, passage

or routes in a port's area, light house and navigable lights, communications

and buoys for the ships to sail safely.

(d) Civil Engineering Department: This department has responsibilities for

management, building and maintenance concerning civil engineering

within the port's area. It is also concerned with dredging and measuring

near wharves, navigable channels and other places.

(e) Mechanical Engineering Department: This department controls services of

MPA's mechanical and electrical engineering activities including

- 17 -

construction and maintenance of ships vehicles, handling machinery and

buoys.

(f) Accounting Department: MPA's financial policies and programs are lad by

the Chief Accountant through a Managing Director who advises him.

(g) Personnel Department: The department operates office management,

administration and supplies and the management of public service

personnel.

(h) Main Store Department: The department has to supply, maintain and order

needed handling machinery, articles for use and supply goods from either

local or foreign sources to the MPA.

The 4 divisions led by managers have to take responsibility through a

Managing Director. The Medical Division gives treatment to public service personnel

and their families. The Progress Co-ordination Division gives advice to plan long-term

and short-term projects, and convey information, facts and data collected as necessary.

The Computer Division is an electronic data processing unit which calculates,

analyzes, and produces port information and data concerned with the MPA. The

Internal Accounting Division inspects items being used against the budget and

maintains an asset list as well as other records.

The eight external ports are organized by regional location. Along the

coastline of Myanmar, there are 4 states/divisions as shown in Figure 8. The ports of

the Sittway, Kyakphu and Thandwe are under control of the port officer of Rakhine

State. Pathein port is under the port officer of Ayeyarwaddy Division and the ports of

Dawei, Meik and Kyakthaung are under the port officer of Tanintharri Division

respectively. Only the ports of Sittway, Pathein and Mawlamyine can be considered

international ports and the others are coastal and inland ports to handle goods.

Mawlamyine port has not been able to handle exports for the last 15 years.

Kyakthaung Port on the other hand became an international port to handle border trade

with Thailand.

- 18 -

Figure 8: Ports of Myanmar


The MPA's Managing Director manages the port polices as a Chief Executive

Officer and co-ordinates, and pilots the work of respective departments. The General

Manager has to help and assist him to plan long-term and short-term projects and to

carry out the affairs of his subordinates.

2.5 Current Situation of Port Industry

The objectives of the MPA are as follows (MPA, 2012):

(a) Ships no longer need to stay at the port

(b) Safe entry and exit of ships

(c) Loading and discharging of the cargo within a short time

(d) Import and export cargoes to be handled without damage

(e) To provide a better service to port users

(f) To increase performance of the port’s personnel

KAWTHOUNG

DAWEI

MYEIK

MAWLAMYINE

YANGON

PATHEIN

THANDWE

KYAUKPYU

SITTWE

- 19 -

MPA duly provides various services such as Pilotage, Container and General

Cargo Handling, Tug Services, Shipping Agency Services, Fire Fighting, Port Security,

Fresh Water Supply and Ship Repair Services.

Before 1995, all the terminals were operated by only the management and

ownership of MPA itself. MPA was solely responsible for port planning under the

direction of the Ministry of Transport. In 1995, the Myanmar government started to

launch the port development plan with several schemes of fund raising from the

private sector as below;

(a) 100% National investment

(b) 100% Investment under Build, Operate and Transfer by foreign and/or

local investors

(c) Joint-venture basic between MPA and foreign and/or local Investors.

(d) Grant aids or soft loans financed by international financial institutions

Under that development plan, Thilawa port area has been developed for the

new port area of Yangon port. The location of the Thilawa port is about 16 kilometers

downstream from the existing Yangon port along the Yangon river. From 1997, port

operations at Yangon port have no longer been the monopoly of MPA alone and both

foreign and local investors became players in the operation of Yangon port. Since

2011 the newly elected government has led the country and been reforming every

sector. One of the big impacts of the economic reforms of the transport sectors is to

develop the port sector within a Private Public Partnership arrangement. Now MPA is

more responsible for the administration (authority) rather than being a terminal

operator. The organization structure of MPA will be re-structured in the near future to

be in line with current national and international practices.

2.5.1 Yangon Port and Its Terminals

The Port of Yangon, which is a river port and premier port of Myanmar, lies

along the Yangon river on the Yangon city side and is situated at Latitude 16˚ 46’ N,

Longitude 96˚ 15’ E. Thilawa port area is 16 km downstream of the Yangon port

along the Yangon river as well. Figure 9 shows the Yangon river estuary and location

- 20 -

of Yangon port and Thilawa port areas. All these port areas are situated on the bank of

Yangon river. Yangon port is about 32 km inward from Elephant Point on the Gulf of

Martaban where is the mouth of Yangon river and Thilawa port is just half way

between Yangon port and the mouth of the Yangon river. All vessels calling to the

Yangon Port, require compulsory pilotage if they are over 200 GRT (MPA, 1998).

Figure 9: Yangon River Estuary


Yangon river has two bottle necks with sand bars, namely Inner Bar and Outer

Bar as shown in Figure 10. According to the nature of the river port, all vessels calling

to the Yangon Port and Thilawa Port have generally been sailing on flood tides and

crossing both the Inner Bar and Outer Bar at near high tide to assure sufficient water

depths. As for the current water depth of Yangon river Yangon port officially notified

accessible vessel information as 167 meter LOA, 9 meter draft and 15,000 DWT, and

for the Thilawa Port area it is 200 meter LOA, 9 meter draft and 20,000 DWT.

- 21 -

Table 2: Wharves and Terminals at Yangon Port (including Thilawa Area)

N

o. Name of terminal

Short

Name

Port

Operator

/ Investor

Berth

length

(m)

Remark

Yangon Port Area

1 Htedan Oil Berth HOB MEC

(Local)

88 Oil

2 Htedan Port Terminal (1) HPT1

AWPT

(Local)

213 GC & Container

3 Htedan Port Terminal (2) HPT2 213 GC & Container

4 Asia World Port Terminal (1) AWPT1 198 GC & Container



7 Myanma Industrial Port (1) MIP1 MIP

(Local)

155 GC & Container

8 Myanma Industrial Port (1) MIP1 155 GC & Container

9 Sule Pagoda Wharf (1) SPW1

MPA

(Gov.)

137 GC

10 Sule Pagoda Wharf (2) SPW2 137 GC






16 Boaungkyaw Street Wharf (1) BSW1 Lanpyi

(Local)

137 GC & Container

17 Boaungkyaw Street Wharf (2) BSW2 137 GC & Container

18 Boaungkyaw Street Wharf (3) BSW3 183 Container

N

o. Name of terminal

Short

Name

Port

Operator

/ Investor

Berth

length

(m)

Remark

Thilawa Port Area

19 Myanmar Integrated Port Limited MIPL MIPL

(Foreign)

200 GC & liquid

bulk

20 Myanmar Intl. Terminals, Thilawa (1) MITT1

Hutchison

(Foreign)

200 GC & Container

21 Myanmar Intl. Terminals, Thilawa (2) MITT2 200 GC & Container





- 22 -

Nowadays, a total of 24 sea going vessels can use the terminals in Yangon

port (including Thilawa port area) at any one time. (18 at terminals in Yangon port

area and 6 at terminals in Thilawa port area). Among these 24 berths, 7 berths are

owned by MPA and all the rest are owned by national and foreign investors as shown

in Table 2 (all these terminals are numbered sequentially from up stream to down

stream along the Yangon river).

2.5.2 Vessels/ Cargo Throughput/ Container Handling

The number of vessels calling at Yangon Port (including Thilawa port area) in

2011-2012 Fiscal Year was 1833. The port handled more than 408,0430 TEU and

20.408 million Metric Tons of cargo in the same Fiscal Year.

Table 3: Number of Vessels Calling into Yangon Port (Including Thilawa Terminals)

No F. Year MPA MITT AWPT MIPL MIP MOGE MPE HCB LPM Total (+/-)

1 2007-2008 441 163 267 29 68 124 173 28 - 1293 12%

2 2008-2009 406 172 324 32 84 120 150 1 - 1289 -0.3%

3 2009-2010 654 214 380 43 93 108 106 - - 1598 24%

4 2010-2011 656 267 373 48 139 73 88 31 100* 1775 11%

5 2011-2012 632 241 356 38 149 74 112 89 142* 1833 2%

* LPM = Lantharyar Pilot Bouy, MOGE=Ministry of Oil, Gas and Energy


Table 3 shows the number of vessels calling at Yangon Port (including

Thilawa terminals) for the last five financial years by name of the terminals and Figure

10 shows a graphical representation of the number of vessels over the past 11 years

calling into Yangon port.

- 23 -

Figure 10: Number of Vessels Calling into Yangon Port (2001-02 to 2011-12)


Table 4 and Table 5 show details of Yangon port throughput of all cargo and

containerized cargo in the past 6 years. Figures 11 and 12 show trends in the

development of the cargo throughput from 2001-02 to 2011-12 at Yangon port.

Table 4: Seaborne Trade of the Yangon Port (including Thilawa)

(M.Ton in thousands)

No Year Imports Exports Total Yearly

Growth Rate%

1 2006-2007 5623 5332 10,955 7%

2 2007-2008 6240 5619 11,859 8%

3 2008-2009 6150 6166 12,316 4%

4 2009-2010 9492 6655 16,147 31%

5 2010-2011 12307 6131 18,438 14%

6 2011-2012 12590 7818 20,408 11%


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1098

951 9711087 1102

1153

1293 1289

1598

17751833

Number of vessels calling to the Yangon Port

- 24 -

Figure 11: Seaborne Trade of the Yangon Port (including Thilawa)

(2001-02 to 2011-12)


Table 5: Volume of Containers Handled by Yangon Port (including Thilawa)

No Year Import Export Total

(TEU)

Total

(M.T in

thousand)

Yearly

Growth

Rate%

1 2006-2007 99,942 97,337 197,279 3148.324 15%

2 2007-2008 115.267 111.236 226.503 3462.489 15%

3 2008-2009 133.712 130.294 264.006 3937.131 17%

4 2009-2010 152.077 151.333 303.410 4372.025 15%

5 2010-2011 175,315 171,327 346,642 4,571.902 14%

6 2011-2012 207,540 200,503 408,043 5,594.589 18%


- 25 -

Figure 12: Volume of Containers Handled by Yangon Port (including Thilawa)

(by TEU in thousands) (2000-01 to 2011-12)


All these statistics show gradual increases in cargo throughput via Yangon

Port (average 15% in containerized cargo for the last 6 years). To cope with the sea

borne traffic growth resulting from the economic liberalization program of the country,

port development has been carried out by inviting local and foreign investment at

Yangon and Thilawa Port areas. Myanma Port Authority is planning to implement the

Yangon Port Improvement Project which will accommodate bigger sized vessels up to

35,000 DWT at Yangon Port and Thilawa Port.

2.5.3 Development of the Thilawa Port Area

In 1988, the Myanmar government changed from having a socialist closed

market economic policy to a market oriented trade policy and partially liberalized

various sectors. As a consequence, the maritime sector gained some growth in

maritime trade under the market oriented system that allowed foreign and local private

investors to participate in the country’s economy. Cargo throughput had been

increasing considerably since 1988, reaching the limit of Yangon Port’s capacity.

- 26 -

Figure 13: Map of Yangon Port and Thilawa Port


In 1991, a prefeasibility study for a port at Thilawa was prepared by BECOM,

France under a contract from UNDP. That study was hosted by Myanma Port

Authority (MPA), with a Third Port Project. According to their compressive report,

traffic throughput increases had to be achieved by improving operational performance.

There was a lack of infrastructure and equipment for the port operations at that time,

berth occupancy of the existing port operation was more than 80% and the report

highly recommended that a detailed feasibility study be prepared as soon as possible.

According to the results of the feasibility study the Thilawa area, located some

16 km downstream of the current Yangon Port, was earmarked to expand the port.

Figure 13 shows the location of the Thilawa port area on a satellite map.

For development of the port, 37 plots of land at the water’s edge were

allocated at the Thilawa area. Each plot of land was 15 hectares (37 acres) measured

as uniform quay length of 200 m and 750 m land width. At that time, the development

of a commercial port was to be completed by foreign investors through BOT and JV

basic. The parties were Italian-Thai Development Company, Myanmar Integrated Port

- 27 -

Limited (MIPL), Myanmar International Terminals Thilawa (MITT) and MPA-SMD

Company. However following economic recession under the military government,

only MIPL and MITT finished constructing their terminals and have been running

them since 1997. Figure 14 shows the layout of the 37 plots at Thilawa area.

Figure 14: 37 Plots for the Thilawa Port Development Plan

Source: amended and edited from google earth

In 2009, the military government tried to change the system and drafted a

constitutional law to build up the country and encourage privatization of various

industries including the maritime industry. As part of the privatization initiatives, the

former Government offered and allowed Myanmar investors to participate in the fuel

oil supply business to meet the needs and high demand of the country. 14 Plots of land

at Thilawa port area were also allocated to develop tanker port/ fuel oil terminals. In

addition, 4 plots of land were designated for the development of GC and Grains

Terminals by Myanmar investors too. Moreover, a ship breaking yard has been

constructed and commissioned on 4 plots of land. Since then 10 plots of land have

been reserved to construct ports to serve maritime cargo traffic generated from/to

- 28 -

Thilawa SEZ – these will be developed in the very near future. Thus the current status

of development and usage of the original 37 plots is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Current Status of Development and Usage of Terminals in Thilawa Area

No. Situation/ condition of the terminal Number of Plots

1 Already developed

- MIPL (edible oil berth 1 unit )

- MITT (container and GC 5 units)

- MEC (ship breaking yard 4 units)

10 plots

2 Under Construction (GC terminal) 4 plots

3 Under Construction (Tanker Berth) 11 plots

4 Under Construction (Grains Terminal) 4 plots

5 Reserved 8 plots

Total 37 plots


2.5.4 Extension of Yangon Port

To cope with the growth of sea borne traffic resulting from the market

oriented economic reformation and liberalization program of the newly elected

government since 2011, port developments have been carried out by inviting local and

foreign investment at the Yangon and Thilawa Port areas for various projects under

Private Public Partnership (PPP). Nowadays, the maritime cargo traffic of the Yangon

port has climbed to more than 20 million tons (2011-12 financial year). The efficiency

in cargo handling at the 24 wharves of Yangon Port has reached almost 70% which is

the optimum capacity of the port. Therefore there is a need to develop more terminals

within the area of the Yangon Port.

There are two scenarios for the development at Yangon port area. The first is

to call tenders for participation in a Joint venture scheme for the terminals still owned

by Myanma Port Authority (MPA). Recently, Sule 1 to 4 (total 4 berths and backup

area of the terminal) have been progressing tenders to have a joint venture renovate,

upgrade and operate the berths. Another scenario is for some remaining river front

areas of Yangon to be developed as international wharves. Figure 15 shows the

- 29 -

existing port/terminal areas and the possible areas for development of international

port/terminals.

Figure 15: Current and Potential Port Areas at Yangon City


According to the recent port extension plan, Yangon port will have more

berths allocated and the proposed total available berths will be as follows:

Total Quay Length (meters) - 2548.00

Total Backup Area (acres) - 233.31

Number of Wharves - 34

Number of Adaptable Vessels - 35

2.5.5 Improving the Yangon River Access Channel

Along the Yangon river access channel approaching the Yangon port area,

there are two constraints (shallow water areas) namely Inner Bar and Outer Bar as

previously mentioned. These bars are major obstacles restricting the size and draft of

vessels calling to Yangon and Thilawa ports. Figure 16 shows the estuary of the

Yangon river and the location of these two obstacles. The available water depth at the

Inner Bar below chart datum is about 4.5 m and at the Outer Bar near Elephant Point it

is only about 5 m. All vessels calling at the Yangon and Thilawa ports have generally

- 30 -

been sailing on flood tides and crossing both the Inner Bar and Outer Bar at near high

tide to ensure sufficient water depth.

Daily maintenance dredging has been carried out to obtain sufficient water

depth at the Inner bar for safe navigation of vessels entering and re-location of

navigation buoys has occasionally been undertaken on the Outer bar at the mouth of

the Yangon river.

To cope with the growth in seaborne cargo traffic, reduce the logistics costs

associated with maritime trade, and increase the accessibility for bigger vessels to call

at Yangon Port, MPA has been taking initiatives to improve the Yangon river access

channel and associated port facilities.

Figure 16: Yangon River Estuary


- 31 -

Improving the Yangon river access channel will involve dredging and/or

constructing river retaining structures at the appropriate areas along the river to give

access for vessels up to 35,000 DWT.

In parallel, it may be necessary to upgrade the existing related port facilities

such as strengthening wharves, installing modern cargo handling equipment, and

providing navigation aids and other related facilities to cater for 35,000 DWT vessels.

Before implementing this project, a detailed feasibility study needs to be

conducted on improving the Yangon river access channel and upgrading the facilities

of Yangon Port for the sustainable development of our country’s economy and

maritime transport as a whole.

Currently MPA is discussing with foreign and local firms a pre-feasibility

study and master plan for the Yangon/Thilawa ports approach channel to improve

the navigation channel in the Yangon river. Figure 17 shows the time line proposed

for developing a draft plan to improve shipping access along the Yangon river.

Figure 17: Draft Schedule to Improve Access along the Yangon River

Main Components Year 1 2 3 4 5

Study

1 Study (Phase I Project)

2 MP/FS (Phase 2 Project)

. Source: Myanma Port Authority

2.5.6 Future Development of Thilawa Area

Thilawa area has been established as a part of Yangon port area since 1997,

but it is not achieving the targets of the feasibility study and investors’ expectations

because of factors such as the lack of road and rail infrastructure approaches to the

Thilawa area, difficult policy for positioning the vessels for berthing, unfavorable

trade policy conditions and political problems.

- 32 -

Nowadays, the political system has changed following election of a new

government in 2011. In the first year the new government undertook political reforms

and these were followed by economic reforms in the second year. Maritime sector

reform, including port reform, is being done in accordance with the guidelines of the

President. Many international investors are interested in becoming terminal operators

and investing in other parts of the maritime sector.

To cope with the needs of economic reform and growth of maritime traffic,

the port area has to be extended to allow new players to enter the market as investors.

The concept plan of the Thilawa port area includes a Special Economic Zone by Asia

World Company Ltd. and a project for the expansion of Yangon port in Thilawa from

JICA as potential developments.

2.5.7 Structure Reform in Port Organization

The Myanmar government has been changing the country’s governance

system, economic structure and international relationships since 2011. There have

been a series of reforms in each and every sector. Under the administration of the

Ministry of Transport, four public organizations have been reformed as corporations to

be more responsive in the new environment. One of them is Myanma Port Authority

(MPA). The existing organization structure shown as Figure 7 (in section 2.4) has

eight main pillars to build up the MPA and this is the right time to re-examine the

structure.

Formerly, MPA exclusively owned all the terminals and wharf facilities and

the organization was good enough to control, monitor and maintain them. Nowadays,

about 75% of MPA’s terminals and wharf facilities have already been privatized and

additional wharves have been constructed under the management of private sector

participants. MPA’s role has turned to be an administrative and service oriented

organization rather than terminal operator. The proposed new organization structure of

the MPA is shown in Figure 18.

- 33 -

Figure 18: Intended Organization Structure of Myanma Port Authority

Source: result from the series of discussion with Myanma Port Authority

An organization’s structure and hierarchical reporting relationships affect the

way people in the organization work, operating procedures and information and

control systems (Baltazar, R. & Brooks, M. R., 2007). The intended reformed

structure seems to place more emphasis on the service of the ports to port users and

terminal operators in the port industry. In addition the Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) & Logistics Division will be added under the

management umbrella of the Administration Department and it will work closely with

the International Relations, Human Resources Development & Training (IR, HRD &

Training) teams. According to the intended structure of the organization, dealing with

logistics and services issues will be a significant activity of the future MPA.

2.5.8 National Logistics Association and Port Activities

In the boarder view of the national logistics scene, the Myanmar government

has been trying to build up a National Logistics Association (NLA) to enhance the

efficiency of logistics performance. Under the management of the Ministry of

Transport a “National Level Workshop on Economic Development through the

Integration of Logistics Services” was held in Nay Pyi Taw on 17-18 of March 2008.

- 34 -

Participants included government officials from transport related

ministries/departments, entrepreneurs from the private sector and economic experts

(MOT, 2013). As a result of the national level workshop, five Consultative

Committees have been formed with concerned Ministries, a National Logistics

Development Committee has been formed and establishing the National Logistics

Association was initiated. The latter will have the objectives of formulating the policy,

time-frame and action plan in accordance with relevant sectors. The five consultative

committees are: (i) Infrastructure development committee, (ii) Transport services

development committee, (iii) Laws, rules and regulations committee, (iv) Human

resources development committee, and (v) Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) development committee. A national logistics policy and roadmap

will be adopted later, based on the committees’ recommendations. Action is also being

taken to form a National Logistics Association (NLA) of Myanmar in the near future.

For the successful establishment of the NLA, port and port related logistics

activities will be an important component. In line with that view the “Plan to Establish

the NLA” will be put as one of the criteria in this AHP study to enhance the port

related logistics industry in Myanmar.

2.6 Regional Port Cooperation

2.6.1 Cooperation as a Member of ASEAN Ports Association (APA)

As a member of ASEAN, Myanmar has been continuously and actively

participating in all the activities and cooperation tasks of ASEAN. The ASEAN

Community is comprised of three pillars, namely the ASEAN Political-Security

Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN Socio-

Cultural Community (ASCC). Each pillar has its own blueprint, and the AEC

blueprint was adopted by the ASEAN Leaders at the 13th ASEAN Summit on 20

November 2007 in Singapore to serve as a coherent master plan guiding the

establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community through to 2015 (ASEAN, 2007).

In the AEC blueprint, one of the actions relating to the maritime sector is to implement

a “Roadmap towards an Integrated and Competitive Maritime Transport System” in

- 35 -

ASEAN. This approach should promote and strengthen the intra-ASEAN maritime

transport market and services. The strategic schedule of activities is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Strategic Schedule for the Development of Maritime Transport in ASEAN

2008-2009 2010-2011 2012-2013 2014-2015

Develop strategies

for an ASEAN

single shipping

market

Implement the

Maritime Transport

Roadmap

Implement the

Maritime Transport

Roadmap

Review the Maritime

Transport Roadmap

for the next 3-5 years

Source: AEC Blueprint (p. 50)

To implement the actions and to achieve the objectives of the roadmap,

policies need to be developed that recognize the special character of shipping and port

industries as international activities. In the roadmap the policy agenda for all the

ASEAN member states has been noted clearly as follows (ASEAN, 2007):

a) Foster competition in all shipping markets;

b) Adhere to the principle of free competition on a commercial basis for cargo

movements to, from or between ASEAN member countries;

c) Promote a set of guidelines for the regulation of liner shipping markets;

d) Prevent or minimize the imposition of unjustifiable fees, surcharges or

imposts by shipping lines or associations of shipping lines with a dominant

position in any trade to, from or within ASEAN;

e) Ensure that any international shipping operations retained under Government-

ownership are corporatized and operated in accordance with commercial

principles;

f) Refrain from providing preferential access to routes, cargoes or contracts to

Government-owned lines, and to adopt a timetable for the removal of such

preferences where they currently exist;

g) Work collectively and progressively towards the development of a single

integrated ASEAN shipping market; and

h) Develop guiding-principles for the pricing of port services based on the cost

of service and infrastructure provisions.

- 36 -

The ASEAN region consists of vital sea lanes, destinations and transit points

for world trade carried by ships. ASEAN has a total of 47 ports (Figure 19) according

to the various study reports and minutes of meetings held by the ASEAN Maritime

Transport Working Group (MTWG). The prosperity of ports of ASEAN member

countries greatly depends on the efficiency, viability and safety of the shipping, port

facilities and maritime trade routes.

Figure 19: 47 Network Ports in ASEAN

Source: ASEAN

Myanma Port Authority has been contributing to all the cooperation activities

from ASEAN Ports Association (APA). The last meeting, the 33rd

Meeting of the

ASEAN Ports Association Working Group held in Da Nang, Vietnam on August 24-

25, 2012 was an important meeting for APA members to discuss members’ potential

as well as other sustainable development projects.

2.6.2 Cooperation with JICA

One of the recent development plans is the expansion of Yangon Port in

Thilawa by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). After a series of meetings

- 37 -

and discussion between responsible officials in Myanma Port Authority (MPA),

Ministry of Transport and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) from 28th

May to 1st June, 2012 JICA submitted minutes of the meeting on scope of work

regarding “the Preparatory Study on the Project for Expansion of Yangon Port in

Thilawa Area in Myanmar”.

The objectives of the study are:

a) To develop Principal Development Plan of Yangon Port in both Yangon City

and Thilawa Area.

b) To conduct the feasibility study on expansion of the port in Thilawa area and

port related facilities to secure safety of navigation.

The tentative schedule of study will be carried out within 11 months (July

2012 to May 2013). MPA and JICA signed and concluded the minutes of meeting on

scope of works regarding “the Preparatory Study on the Project for Expansion of

Yangon Port in Thilawa Area in Myanmar” on 21 September 2012.

Recently, a JICA team had a meeting with officials from Ministry of

Transport and MPA, and the discussion issues were:

a) JICA’s guidelines for environmental and social considerations

b) Possibility of mobilizing grant assistance from Japan

c) Financial issues

d) Procedure to apply for an ODA loan

Regarding cooperation with JICA, according to the current situation,

development in Thilawa area for port and related functions has to be carried out as a

national interest activity. One of the development plans will be implemented in due

time.

2.6.3 MOU with Japan for Transportation Sector

With the aim of promoting mutual cooperation in the field of transportation, a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Ministry of Transport,

- 38 -

the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

Transport and Tourism, Japan on 19 November 2012.

The scope of cooperation under that MOU mentions the development,

management and operation of infrastructure related to water transportation including

Thilawa port and other transport modes.

Forms of cooperation under the MOU are various exchanges of views and

information by both sides; exchange, education and training of experts, researchers

and technicians, including joint studies; and other forms of cooperation.

According to the MOU, better cooperation between Japan and Myanmar

regarding port development is expected.

2.6.4 Other Cooperation Activities

Nowadays, there are several activities concerned with Public–Private

Partnership (PPP) schemes in the port industry of Myanmar. One concrete event was

the tendering of the existing port area for the modernization and upgrading of the

terminals and operating them. Both local and foreign companies have been entering

the tenders to have a Joint Venture (JV) or Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) systems

with MPA.

Because of the better political weather of the country, Government to

Government (G to G) support from various countries has been carried out to develop

the port industry in Myanmar. In the near future, a better picture of the port industry in

Myanmar will emerge to facilitate broader cooperation with regional and other

countries.

- 39 -

Chapter 3: Literature Review

3.1 Conceptual Definition of Port Governance and Logistics

3.1.1 Port Governance and Management

The relationship between Yangon port and city governing was close when

Yangon port city was first established. At that time, in the 18th

century, the mayor

ruled the port. Since that time, the governance structure of the port has changed

profoundly, and port management and operations have also changed in line with

government policies such as devolution, regulatory reform and newly imposed

governance models (Brooks & Cullinane, 2007). Brooks and Cullinane analysed the

impact of the policies on port strategies and port performance as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Drivers of Port Reform

Source: Brooks & Cullinane, (2007)

World Bank (2013) defined governance as the “rule of the rulers, typically

within a given set of rules. One might conclude that governance is the process – by

which authority is conferred on rulers, by which they make the rules, and by which

those rules are enforced and modified.” The Bank also pointed out that governance

requires identification of both the rulers and the rules, as well as the various processes

- 40 -

by which they are selected, defined, and linked together and with society generally.

Sternberg (1998) provides a quick definition about the corporate governance which

constitutes the way corporate actions, assets and agents for the achievement of

corporate objectives established by the corporation’s shareholders are managed and

carried out. Brooks and Cullinane (2007) pointed out two aspects of governance that

exercise an influence over transportation as being:

a) within each corporation, the management is free to deliver the strategic

vision of the entity in a manner deemed best to deliver the strategic intent of

the organization, within the governance guidelines established by applicable

laws

b) governance rules and processes exist to ensure that the Board meets its

fiduciary responsibilities, and is both responsible and accountable to the

appropriate party

On one hand, port governance has been the wider scope and management

umbrella of the port authority. On the other hand, governance models do not fully

represent the roles, responsibilities and strategic developments of port authorities

(Dooms, Van der & Parola, 2012). They pointed out that port authorities have to

develop the strategic intent for increased competition, more autonomy and increased

accountability for economic performance, but port authorities have to continue as

hybrid organizations, incorporating public characteristics and public goals.

Nowadays, ports are threatened with changing economic and logistics systems

which creates a high degree of uncertainty and places port management teams with the

question of how to respond effectively to market dynamics (Notteboom, 2007). Cheon

(2007) also noted that “while internal port functions have become more complex than

ever, the roles of ports can be differently viewed based on the larger socioeconomic

contexts and ideologies faced by the port”.

3.1.2 Port Related Logistics

Viewing the whole transport logistics system, a port plays a decisive role as an

important node of urban development connecting port users, cargo owners, shipping

- 41 -

and local inland transport companies, and involves freight forwarding, transportation

companies, government, banks and many other enterprises (Mi & Hanbin, 2010). The

combined activity of these parties has a strong pull effect on local economic growth.

They also noted that finding suitable logistics development models for ports has

become a critical concern that is closely related to how to develop the port logistics

better and faster.

Moreover, ports play a vital role in the management and co-ordination of

materials and information flows, as transport is an integral part of the entire supply

chain (Carbone & Martino, 2003). World Bank (2007) pointed about that ports are

now perceived to be the remaining controllable component in improving the efficiency

of ocean transport logistics.

Wei, Lijuan & Lijuan (2007) discussed how port logistics competitiveness has

many different angles and latitudes. They highlighted five aspects of port logistics,

namely logistics operation conditions, logistics development environment, logistics

infrastructure, logistics service level and logistics potential. Gengyong, Ynuqi &

Wangyi (2011) also followed the former categories of a port logistics’ aspects and

extended their research into the internal and external factors that affect the logistics

competitiveness of a port, They identified a practical descriptive model to evaluate

port logistics competitiveness on the basis of their definition and the analysis of

evaluation incentives.

Regarding the existing situation of the port and transport industry in Myanmar,

the logistics sector plays a vital role not only in the nation but also in the wider region.

Programs for the development of logistics services in ASEAN, GMS and BIMSTEC

are being undertaken. According to the regional association ASEAN, logistics is one

of the 12 priority sectors for integration in order to establish the ASEAN Economic

Community (AEC) in 2015. Limitations in the sector will be liberalized completely in

2013.

Serhat & Harun, (2011) noted that there is increasing concern about the

relationships between private logistics strategies and public interests and policies. This

widening of logistics goes to every aspect of the various industries and ports are a key

- 42 -

element in other related transport logistics systems. Optimal strategic and policy

decisions are a fundamental need for the enhancement of the port related logistics

sectors and industries. Port related logistics is a basic mechanism that can drive the

national logistics system and performance as well.

3.2 Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

When formulating public policy, decisions are complicated because of at least

two reasons; they involve competing different objectives impacting on multiple

economic sectors and occasionally overlapping jurisdictions occur as well. Forman &

Gass, (2001) strongly agreed that the structure provided by AHP allows competing

constituencies with different objectives to better understand each other and to develop

‘win – win’ solutions. This is necessary in developing policies acceptable to more than

one constituency.

The nature of strategic planning also has many facets, several of which can be

facilitated using AHP. Heizer & Render, (1993) described the strategy development

process as follows: “In order to develop an effective strategy, organizations first seek

to identify opportunities in the economic system. Then we define the organization’s

mission or purpose in society -- what it will contribute to society. This purpose is the

organization’s reason for being, that is, its mission. Once an organization’s mission

has been decided, each functional area within the firm determines its supporting

mission...” and “We achieve missions via strategies. A strategy is a plan designed to

achieve a mission…A mission should be established in light of the threats and

opportunities in the environment and the strengths and weakness of the organization.”

AHP can assist a team or organization select among alternative missions and

objectives, select from alternative strategies, and in allocating available and possible

potential resources to implement the chosen optimum strategy. Another way of

looking at it is strategic planning involves a ‘forward process’ and a ‘backward

process’ which means the projecting forward the likely or logical future and

prioritizing for the desired future. Using the backward process, planners identify both

opportunities and obstacles and eventually select effective policies with the priority

- 43 -

orders/ sequences to facilitate reaching the desired future (Forman & Gass, 2001).

AHP has been used to choose the optimal strategy and priority of different criteria by

numerous researchers. Forman & Gass concluded that AHP can be effectively used to

prioritize applications involving determining the relative merit of a set of alternatives

as opposed to selecting one alternative.

AHP is a decision-making procedure originally developed by Saaty (1970s) to

establish priorities in multi-criteria decision making. AHP imitates the way humans

think about decision making and provides a simplified structure of a decision process.

That process allows using both quantitative and qualitative attributes/criteria for

decision making purposes. Moreover, the consistency in the judgment can be checked

for better and reliable approaches of the respondents’ opinions. Using the pair-wise

comparison allows the decision maker to determine the trade-offs among criteria. Thus

AHP is a simple and easy decision making tool (Haas & Meixner, 2009).

In a range of research areas, academic areas, different societies and many

industries, AHP has been effectively used for decision making purposes. Some

concrete example of AHP applications include “Deciding how best to reduce the

impact of global climate change” by Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, “Quantifying the

overall quality of software systems” by Microsoft Corporation, “Selecting university

faculty” in Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, “Deciding where to locate

offshore manufacturing plants” for University of Cambridge, “Assessing risk in

operating cross-country petroleum pipelines” with American Society of Civil

Engineers, and “Deciding how best to manage U.S. watersheds” for U.S. Department

of Agriculture.

AHP has been used in various settings by public agencies to make decisions

and Saaty, (2008) recorded some of many applications in public administration in his

paper “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of

Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008. including

(a) The state of North Carolina used it to develop evaluation criteria and

assign ratings to vendors, leading to the selection of a best-value vendor

acceptable to the decision makers.

- 44 -

(b) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the USA with so many

competing requirements for their information technology projects used it

to allocate all of a $100 million portfolio. NRC’s challenge had been

difficulty with prioritizing so many competing requirements for IT work

effort as well as getting their 35 member decision-making group to

achieve consensus. Using AHP not only helped allocate NRC’s IT

resources, but also reduced the amount of decision time from up to 20

meetings down to just a few.

(c) The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) is a

governing body in the USA composed of the Federal Reserve Board

(FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office

of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC). They used AHP to prioritize

strategic enhancements for an activity all the bodies needed to have, Call

Data Reporting. They prioritized their objectives across competing

requirements in a limited resource environment and were able to

complete this in a one-day session.

(d) The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington (BGCGW) is the

largest affiliate of Boys and Girls Clubs in the USA. As part of their

strategic planning process, the BGCGW needed to define ‘at-risk’ youth

and used AHP to set relative priorities based on the factors. The group

reached consensus and has set the standards they now use in the BGCGW

strategic plan.

(e) The Department of Defence in the USA uses it frequently and extensively

to allocate their resources to their diverse activities.

(f) The General Services Administration (GSA) of the USA used AHP to

support their annual Information Technology Council (ITC) and Council

of Controllers (COC) meeting to prioritize their major information

technology initiatives. They used the process to refine their analytical

framework, prioritize their criteria and then rate each IT initiative against

them. The result was the first-ever GSA-wide prioritization of major IT

- 45 -

initiatives, which included a benefit-cost analysis and a benefit-risk

analysis.

(g) In (2001), AHP was used to determine the best relocation site for the

earthquake devastated Turkish city Adapazari.

(h) British Airways used AHP in 1998 to choose the entertainment system

vendor for its entire fleet of airplanes.

(i) A company used it in 1987 to choose the best type of platform to build

when drilling for oil in the North Atlantic. A platform costs around 3

billion dollars to build, but the demolition cost was an even more

significant factor in the final decision.

(j) AHP was applied to the US versus China conflict in the intellectual

property rights battle of 1995 over Chinese individuals copying music,

video and software tapes and CD’s. An AHP analysis involving three

hierarchies for benefits, costs and risks showed that it was much better for

the US not to sanction China.

(k) Xerox Corporation has used AHP to allocate close to a billion dollars to

its research projects.

(l) In 1999, the Ford Motor Company used AHP to establish priorities for

criteria that improve customer satisfaction. Ford gave Expert Choice Inc,

an award for excellence for helping them achieve greater success with its

clients.

(m) In 1986 the Institute of Strategic Studies in Pretoria, a South African

government-backed organisation, used AHP to analyse the conflict in

South Africa and recommended actions ranging from the release of

Nelson Mandela to the removal of apartheid and the granting of full

citizenship and equal rights to the black majority. All of these

recommended actions were quickly implemented.

(n) AHP has been used in student admissions, military personnel promotions

and hiring decisions.

(o) In USA sport, AHP was used in 1995 to predict which football team

would go to the Superbowl and win (correct outcome, Dallas won over

- 46 -

Pittsburgh). AHP was applied in baseball to analyse which Padres players

should be retained.

(p) IBM used the process in 1991 when designing its successful mid-range

AS 400 computer. IBM won the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige award for

excellence for that effort.

3.3 Previous Research using AHP

There are several research titles identifying applications of the Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) on strategy formulation, decision making, prioritizing the

policy factors, judgments in uncertain environments, and selection of multifaceted

approaches. Some concrete examples of successful research using AHP methods are:

Hauser & Tadikamalla, (1996) used AHP in an uncertain environment with a

simulation approach. In their research, they pointed out that the problems associated

with traditional methods of bringing ambiguous judgments to a single point estimate

by decision makers.

Dolan, (2008) also carried out shared decision-making – transferring research

in practice by using AHP with the objective of illustrating how it can be used to

promotes decision-making and enhance clinician–patient communication. According

to his result, AHP promotes shared decision-making by creating a framework that is

used to define the decision, summarize the information available, prioritize

information needs, elicit preferences and values, and foster meaningful

communication among decision stakeholders. He concluded AHP and related methods

have the potential for improving the quality of decisions and overcoming current

barriers to implementing shared decision-making in a complex environment.

Regarding decision making, Matthew & Robert, (2008) accomplished

research related to medical and health care systems using AHP and Lin, Wen & Tsai,

(2010) applied AHP analysis as a decision-making tool to national e-waste recycling

policy. Matthew & Robert conducted a literature review of applications of AHP to

important problems in medical and health care decision making, classified by year of

publication, health care category, journal, method of analyzing alternatives,

- 47 -

participants, and application type. They found 50 examples of research, noting very

few articles were published prior to 1988 but the level of activity has increased to

about three articles per year since 1997. Within the 50 examples, 21 related to patient

care and 29 were in management and administration. As policy making is in essence a

process of discussion, Lin, Wen, & Tsai also applied AHP in their research to evaluate

the possibilities and determine the priority for a new mandatory recycled waste policy

for the promotion of the country’s performance in recycling.

Researchers from Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine and other

researchers worked together on the research “The comparative evaluation of expanded

national immunization policies in Korea using an analytic hierarchy process” with the

purpose to propose new evaluation criteria. An AHP model was used to assess the

expanded national immunization programs (ENIPs) and to evaluate two alternative

health care policies (Shin, Kim, et. al., 2009).

In promising nuclear technology areas, in order to create export opportunities

of technology in a global nuclear market, the Korean government had planned to

increase strategically focused R&D investment. With the purpose of presenting a

decision support process for selecting promising nuclear technology with the

perspective of exportability, Lee & Hwang, (2010) carried out research for decision

support by using AHP based on extensive data gathered from nuclear experts in Korea.

Nakagawa, Nasu, Saito & Yamaguchi, (2010) used an AHP based statistical

method for the design of a comprehensive policy alternative based policy design

method (AHPo) for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted approach. In

the AHPo method, criteria relevant to the goal or focus are structured in a similar way

to conventional AHP.

Additional examples of research using AHP for decision making, choosing

resources policy and management, and evaluation of alternative policies are provided

in Table 8.

- 48 -

Table 8: Examples of Research using AHP

Author Research Title

X. Mei, R. Rosso, G. L. Huang &

G. S. Nie. (1989)

Application of analytical hierarchy process to water

resources policy and management in Beijing, China

R. Ramanathan (2001) A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process

for environmental impact assessment

M. F. Merritt (2006) Planning and Evaluation with the Analytic

Hierarchy Process

Audrey M. A. B. & Dundar F. K.

(2007)

Analytic Hierarchy Process for Technology Policy:

Case Study the Costa Rican Digital Divide

M. Berrittella, A. Certa, M. Enea

and P. Zito (2007)

An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation

of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change

Impacts

Kim, A. J., Lee, K. D., Cho, G. I.

& Ryoo D. K. (2009)

The motivation of the Strategic Alliance between

Ports Using AHP

M. Mortazavi, L. Ghanbari, M.

Rajabbeigi & H. Mokhtari (2009)

Prioritizing agricultural research projects with

emphasis on analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

Irfan, S. & Hwang J. S. (2009) The Application of AHP to Evaluate Information

Security Policy Decision Making

Irfan, S. & Hwang J. S. (2009) The Application of AHP Model to Guide Decision

Makers: A Case Study of E-Banking Security

Source: organized from various research papers

- 49 -

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

4.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Nowadays, decision making is a kind of mathematical science which utilizes

all the relevant data available at the time the decision is to be made. (Saaty, 2008,

Figuera et al., 2005). When formulating strategic policy, giving priority to the many

factors or activities involved is the most important part of the decision making process.

Also there are many intangible factors which need to be considered. Incorporating

these intangible factors into a decision has, for a long time, been difficult for different

parties involved in or affected by the decision such as operators, users and

administrators. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a tool that can be used in this

kind of complex situation to prioritize the many factors involved in making decisions

to develop strategic policy.

4.1.1 AHP Concept

AHP is a structured technique for arranging and working with complex

decisions and complicated factors or information to be prioritized. It is also a decision-

making procedure for establishing priorities in multi-criteria decision making. AHP

helps to optimize the goal which has been formed from multivariate elements and

environments.

AHP was originally developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s as a decision

making procedure and has been extensively studied and refined with various

approaches in numerous problematic areas/sectors since then. AHP makes available a

comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem by

prioritizing the elements involved. It also provides a method to represent and qualify

the elements, bringing them together to formulate optimal goals, and for evaluating

decision making policy with a list of priorities.

The psychology and the usefulness of AHP in decision making and the

prioritizing of policy matters can be seen in its application in situations such as the

selection of one alternative from a given set of alternatives, usually where there are

- 50 -

multiple decision criteria involved; ranking a set of alternatives in order from most to

least desirable; determining the relative merit of elements in a set of alternatives, as

opposed to selecting a single one or merely ranking them to get the relevant priority;,

apportioning resources among a set of alternatives for resource allocation; comparing

the processes in one's own organization with those of other best-of-breed

organizations for bench marking; dealing with multidimensional aspects of quality and

quality improvement as part of quality management; and settling disputes between

parties with apparently incompatible goals or positions for conflict resolution.

The typical standard structure of AHP is shown in Figure 21. An AHP

hierarchy is a structured means of modeling the decision in a holistic approach. It

consists of an overall goal which is the objective of the case, and a group of factors or

criteria that contribute to setting the goal. The criteria can be further broken down into

sub-criteria and so on, into as many levels as the problem requires.

Figure 21: AHP Standard Structure

For this research, criteria have been classified into groups and sub-criteria

have been listed under each criterion as shown in Figure 22. According to the rank of

the importance of each element, the policy can be drawn from the priorities of the

various elements.

- 51 -

Figure 22: AHP Structure for Optimizing of the Priority

4.1.2 AHP Procedures

To make a decision in an organized way to generate priorities, the decision

elements need to be decomposed in the following steps:

(a) Define the goal and determine the available criteria which are the

elements needed to set the goal. A user of AHP decomposes their problem

into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems, each of

which can be analyzed independently. If there are many possible elements

under each criterion, a pilot survey can be helpful to narrow down the

number of elements to focus on and assign priority.

(b) Structure the decision hierarchy from the top with the goal of the decision

making policy, then the broad objectives through to the intermediate

levels (criteria on which subsequent elements depend) to the lowest level

(which is a set at the sub-criteria level for this research).

(c) After the structure of the hierarchy is built, construct a set of pairwise

comparison matrices. Systematically evaluate the listed elements by

comparing them to one another two at a time (pairwise comparison). This

step is the essence of AHP analysis requiring human judgment and not

just the underlying information when making the evaluations.

(d) Use the priorities obtained from the comparisons to weight the priorities

in the level immediately below. Numerical priorities are calculated for

each of the decision sub-criteria. These numbers represent the priority and

Goal to list the priority of the criteria

Criterion 3

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

Criterion 2

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

Criterion 1

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

Sub-criteria

- 52 -

composition of the elements to construct the strategic and policy decisions

to optimize the goal.

4.1.3 AHP Methodology

AHP captures priorities from paired comparison judgments of the elements

(sub-criteria) of the decision with respect to each of their parent criteria. All these

criteria and sub-criteria are carried out using a questionnaire to get the opinions from

the participants. Paired comparison judgments can be arranged in a matrix and

priorities are derived from the matrix as its principal eigenvector, which defines a ratio

scale. AHP is used to check which criteria has the most important priority and this is

followed by a series of sub-criteria.

Table 9: Fundamental Scale of Absolute Numbers

Source: Saaty (2008)

- 53 -

To make comparisons, a scale of numbers is needed to indicate how many

times more important or dominant one element is over another element with respect to

the criterion or property to which they are being compared. AHP procedure is very

similar to a hierarchical value structure. There are 1-9 scales of intensity of importance

which are used like a weighing scale to measure each factor. Table 9 shows the scale

and the comparison of intensity of importance is usually from 1 to 9, even though

some activities can be assigned a decimal representative number as shown at the

bottom of the Table 9.

Once the result value from the questionnaire of each respondent has been

obtained, a matrix has to be completed using these value numbers. For this research,

there is one [ 5 x 5 ] matrix for the main criteria and five [ 3 x 3 ] matrices for the sub-

criteria. An example of a [ 5 x 5 ] matrix is shown below.

Factors C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

C1 w1/w1 w1/w2 w1/w3 w1/w4 w1/w5

C2 w2/w1 w2/w2 w2/w3 w2/w4 w2/w5

C3 w3/w1 w3/w2 w3/w3 w3/w4 w3/w5

C4 w4/w1 w4/w2 w4/w3 w4/w4 w4/w5

C5 w5/w1 w5/w2 w5/w3 w5/w4 w5/w5

Paired comparisons in AHP are given in terms of consistent and near

consistent matrices. The consistent set leads to computing the principal eigenvector of

the following equation which is written out in slightly elaborated but familiar matrix

form:

nw. =

w

w

n =

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

A

A

= Aw

A A

n

1

n

1

n

n

1

n

n

1

1

1

n

1

n1

- 54 -

When written out as a system of equations it becomes

i

n

j

jij wwa

1

max

i = 1,…,n

For the above equation, it is subjected to: ijji aa /1 (or simply

1ij jia a ) and that is

known as the reciprocal condition resulting from the stronger consistency condition

, , , 1,...,ij jk ika a a i j k n , and the normalization condition

n

i

iw1

1

.

A short computational way to obtain this ranking is to raise the pairwise

matrix to powers that are successively squared each time, after which the row sums

are calculated and normalized. Finally, the computer is instructed to stop when the

difference between these sums in two consecutive calculations is smaller than a

prescribed value (Haas & Meixner, 2009).

One of the important things to be considered is to count the results from the

respondents in a consistency ratio of the collected data. The consistency index

provides information relating to the weighted value or size and order of the

contribution level. The matrix of pairwise comparisons A = [ aij ] represents the

intensities of the expert’s preference between individual pairs of alternatives (Ai

versus Aj , for all i, j=1, 2, .., n). They are usually chosen from a given scale (1/9,

1/8,…, 8, 9). Given n alternatives { A1, A2, . . . ., An }, a decision maker compares

pairs of alternatives for all the possible pairs, and a comparison matrix A is obtained,

where the element ij shows the preference weight of Ai obtained by comparison with

Aj. The aij elements estimate the ratios i j wi/wj where w is the vector of current

weights of the alternative (which is the goal of AHP).

If a matrix A is absolutely consistent, A=W is observed and in the ideal case

of total consistency (inconsistency=0.00), the principal eigenvalue (max) is equal to n,

i.e “max = n”, the relationship between the weights and the judgments will be given

by wi/wj=aij for i, j = 1, 2,… n. The weights wi , i=1, 2,..., n, are obtained using the

- 55 -

eigenvector method, they are positive and normalized, and satisfy the reciprocity

property (J. A. Alonso, & M. T. Lamata, 2006).

Saaty defined the consistency index (CI) as follows:

(CR : Consistency Ratio= CI/RI)

where RI is the average value of CI for random matrices using the Saaty scale

and Saaty only accepts a matrix as a consistent one if CR < 0.1. If CR>0.1, the

pairwise comparison should be done again, or the questionnaire should be amended.

However when doing group decision-making, if CR>0.1, the method where the

questionnaire is exempted can be used. For this research, the acceptable respondents

were taken under the condition of the CR value being less than 0.15.

AHP (software), Expert Choice, helps to convert all the above mentioned

evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and prioritize all the elements to

reach the goal of the strategic policy decision. The numerical weight or priority is

derived for each element (sub-criterion) of the hierarchy. Finally, the numerical values

of the priorities of the sub-criteria are calculated for each of the priority decision

alternatives. According to the final value of these, straightforward consideration of the

priority level of the elements can be organized and drawn to get a strategic policy

decision to enhance the port related logistics sectors. The research structure and

chronological processes of this study are shown in Figure 23.

- 56 -

Figure 23: Research Structure

4.2 Selection of Priority Factors

The port related logistics sector is a broad landscape with many components.

This study is designed to develop the strategic and policy decision making to enhance

the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar, and to figure out the priority of the most

important factors to be considered within an overall development plan. As for the

major criteria, there are five important elements to be considered: (a) port related

infrastructure for the logistics activities; (b) port regulations affecting logistics; (c)

human resources development in the port sector; (d) current port structural reform in

Myanmar; and (e) contribution of port activities to the establishing of a National level

Logistics Association (NLA).

Each and every element consists of many factors which are considered as sub-

criteria in this study. A pilot survey was carried out to identify the three most

important factors under each topic. The pilot survey questionnaire is shown as

Appendix 1 and the pilot survey respondents are listed in Appendix 2.

- 57 -

4.2.1 Port Infrastructure

A broad range of port related infrastructure plays a largely supporting role in

the development of the logistics sector. It is not easy to use all the possible factors for

AHP analysis sub-criteria. An initial list of port infrastructure related to logistics is

shown below:

(a) Container Terminals

(b) Multipurpose terminals

(c) Depots and ICDs

(d) ICT systems in port operations

(e) Road and rail linkages with the port area

(f) Cargo handling equipment

(g) Office facilities for Customs and other related organizations

All these possible important factors have been identified to find the most

important and concrete elements for the final AHP structure.

4.2.2 Port Regulations

There are many regulations which have been promulgated in tandem with the

development of the logistics related sectors. As with infrastructure it is not easy to use

all the possible factors as sub-criteria for the AHP analysis. A initial list of port

regulations related to logistics follows:

(a) Regulation of logistics services and service providers

(b) Level of integration among different departments with port operations

(c) Regulation enforcement at a regional level

(d) Standardized IMO Regulation (e.g. FAL Forms 7)

(e) Liberalize port regulation to ease access

All these possible important factors have been identified to get the most

important and concrete elements to build a final AHP structure.

- 58 -

4.2.3 Manpower Development in Port Sector

Regarding human resources development, there are many different levels of

management / staff/ persons working in port operations. The study lists out some of

them that are closely related to logistics development and its operation. An initial list

of the human resources development activities in the port sector identified prior to

conducting the pilot survey is shown below:

(a) HRD of related associations

(b) In house training for port labourers and operators

(c) Local logistics players / experts

(d) Awareness of the public and port users

(e) Educating Government staff in port logistics related departments

(f) Recruit new staff who have a logistics academic background

(g) Train the staff within regional level logistics institutions

4.2.4 Current Structural Reform in Myanmar Port

Nowadays, port structure and management has been targeted for reform. The

proposed organization structure was shown in Figure 19 of section 2.3.7. Many factors

need to be considered in port related logistics sector development. An initial list of the

important factors to be considered for the current port structural reform in Myanma

Port Authority follows:

(a) Port Privatization

(b) Service oriented structure reform

(c) Higher degree of port facilitation

(d) Change the tariff system to make it more flexible

(e) Private participation in port management body

(f) Liberalize the one country-one agency system at port operation

4.2.5 Establishment of a National level Logistics Association (NLA)

Cooperation and coordination actions are being taken to implement the

measures required under the roadmap for the integration of logistics services of

- 59 -

ASEAN. Training related to multimodal transport & logistics for people working in

both the public and private sectors are being conducted with the cooperation of

various agencies including Department of Transport, Myanmar Maritime University,

Myanmar International Freight Forwarders’ Association and UNESCAP.

Infrastructure development projects in air, maritime, road and rail transport sectors are

being undertaken in line with international standards. A National level Logistics

Association (NLA) will be established soon in Myanmar. To get better cooperation

and contributions from the port industry, the initial list of the possible important

factors from a port operation point of view are:

(a) Regional integration related to ports

(b) Integration level of other transport related private organizations

(c) Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry stakeholders

(d) Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law

(e) Implementation and follow up of regional level intergovernmental

agreements

(f) Making clearly defined rules and regulations for each sector

4.3 Procedure for the Pilot Survey

The objective of the pilot survey was to narrow down the scope of the study

by identifying the most important factors and to get the most essential criteria to be

used in the decision making policy.

The pilot survey period was 1-16 March 2013. Obtaining views from different

countries would be an effective way to conduct a pilot survey. Thus it was decided the

main target group would be port management masters degree students from World

Maritime University (they are from different countries and they have work experience

and knowledge about port operations), and the participants and organizers of the

APEC training workshop “Facilitating trade & improving supply chain connectivity

in ASEAN economies via good regulatory practice affecting ports & terminals” (the

participants in the training workshop were from 5 ASEAN countries namely:

Myanmar, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and Cambodia, and the organizers were

- 60 -

mainly from RMIT University Australia with additional resource persons being (a) Dr.

Ruth Banomyong, Director, Centre for Logistics Research, Thammasat Business

School, Thammasat University, Bangkok; (b) Mr Douglas Brooks, Assistant Chief

Economist, Development Indicators & Policy Research Division, Asian Development

Bank, Manila; (c) Mr Julian Clarke, Trade Specialist, Poverty Reduction and

Economic Management Team, Cambodia Country Office, The World Bank, Phnom

Penh, and others). A detailed list of the pilot survey respondents is shown in Appendix

2.

The pilot survey was carried out by sending the pilot survey forms via email

to the port management students from World Maritime University (WMU) and they

were collected and returned after one week. A Myanmar student studying a port

management Master degree course helped collect the survey sheets. For the

participants in the APEC training workshop the pilot survey sheets were personally

delivered and collected during the workshop period 11-16 March 2013.

As shown in Appendix 2 the total number of respondents in the pilot survey

was 41 persons from 15 different countries.

4.4 Classification of Evaluation Factors

According to the results of the pilot survey from the respondents working in

the different countries’ port and port related sectors, the most important elements/

factors under the main criteria are as shown in Table 10.

- 61 -

Table 10: Important Elements Identified from the Pilot Survey

Main Item Specific Factor

Port related

infrastructure

Container Terminals

ICT systems in port operations

Cargo handling equipment

Port regulations

related to logistics

Regulation of logistics services and service providers

Level of integration among different departments with port

operations

Liberalize the port regulation to ease access

Human resources

development in port

sector

HRD of related associations

In house training for port laborers and operators

Local logistics players / experts

Port structural reform

Port privatization

Service oriented structure reform

Higher degree of port facilitation

Contribution of port

activities in

establishing National

level Logistics

Association (NLA)

Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry

stakeholders

Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law

Clear definition of the rules and regulations for each sector

4.4.1 Factor Specification

From the completed pilot survey the five final most important factors/

elements have been identified and three specific factors have been identified for each

of these as shown in Table 10. The specific factors, as they relate to the situation in

Myanmar, are described below.

(a) Container terminals: Container terminals are very important to enhance

logistics activities, not only for port and maritime operations but also door-to-

door transport. In Myanmar, with the current maritime cargo throughput,

containerized cargo is less than 30% of the total volume handled. For the

development of the port related logistics sector in Myanmar, container

- 62 -

terminals are an essential need under the category of port related

infrastructure.

(b) ICT systems in port operations: Nowadays, Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) is widely used in all industries, including the port sector.

Almost all the neighbouring countries’ ports operations and management

systems are using computerized systems. To upgrade the Myanmar port

system, computerized communication and management systems will be a vital

component. Moreover, electronic port operations and management systems

can facilitate port operations and enhance the logistics aspects of port related

operations.

(c) Cargo handling equipment: Lack of cargo handling equipment in port

terminals has many negative effects on operations. This factor is very

important in the onsite operations and delays result in longer vessel

turnaround times and congestion in the ports. Even though the importance of

the need for cargo handling equipment in port operations is more subjective

than other factors, it should be taken into account under the port related

infrastructure category.

(d) Regulation of logistics services and service providers: This has been selected

as one of the important factors under the port regulations related to logistics

category. Every port/terminal has its own rules and regulations which have to

be followed by port users. Port operators and logistics service providers

closely work together to obtain better cargo flow through the port operations.

(e) Level of integration among different departments with port operations: Port

related logistics operations cannot be done by a port itself. Several

departments/agencies have to work together including Customs department,

Immigration department, Marine department, Health department, shipping

agencies and freight forwarders. Harmonization of activities between these

different organizations is highly important to get successful port operations.

Regarding the rules and regulations, the level of integration amongst different

departments affecting port operations is an important factor of this study.

- 63 -

(f) Liberalize the port regulation to ease access: One of the barriers between port

operators and port users is that the rules and regulations are not disclosed to

the public or not easy to understand by the user. Safety and smoothness of the

port operations can best be done by people who thoroughly understand the

relevant rules and regulations for the port operations. Thus liberalizing port

regulations affecting port users is an importantly need to get easier access and

better cooperation in the port operations.

(g) HRD of related associations: Knowledge and skills of the human resources is

a big issue for the development of every industry. Port operations consist of

different levels of people including managerial officials, labourers, equipment

operators, consignees, and agents. All persons working in port related logistics

activities should know very well all the procedures, not only port related

documentation but also health and safety and the need for a smooth operation

in the port environment. This is the reason why human resources development

(HRD) in related associations and organisations is one of the important factors

under the category of HRD in the port sector.

(h) In house training for port laborers and operators: Almost all the terminals in

Yangon port are labour intensive terminals. Port productivity depends on the

abilities of the port labourers and operators. On-going in house training for

them is essential for successful port operations. Nowadays, advanced

technology is a normal feature of all aspects of port operations including cargo

handling equipment and documentation systems. In house training for all

levels of port labourers and operators is one of the very important factors for

this research study.

(i) Local logistics players / experts: For the development of the logistics industry

in Myanmar, local logistics players and experts have been playing a vital role.

Currently there is a lack of logistics related training institutions and resource

persons. Myanmar International Freight Forwarders Association (MIFFA) is

one of the non-Governmental organizations trying to provide logistics and

multimodal transport related training with support from United Nations

Economics and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP). Local

- 64 -

logistics players and experts are very important to develop the whole logistics

industry, including port related logistics sectors.

(j) Port privatization: Apart from the infrastructure, regulation and human

resource development aspects of the port industry, recently there have been

changes in ownership of parts of the port industry (no longer 100%

Government ownership) in Myanmar. It is a serious issue to be considered

when formulating future strategic and policy decisions. Before 1997, all the

terminals were owned by Myanma Port Authority as public terminals.

Privatization began in 1997 and nowadays only 25% of the terminals

(according to the berth length) is publicly owned. There will be more

privatization in the near future, in the form of either joint ventures or

concessions or Build Operate & Transfer (BOT) arrangements. In practice

private management operators seem to be more effective than public

management for the terminals in Yangon port. The level of port privatization

becomes one of the most important factors to be considered for the

enhancement of the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar.

(k) Service oriented structural reform: Myanma Port Authority formerly had

eight departments (as shown in Figure 8). Because of the forthcoming port

privatization activity in the near future, a new organization structure for the

port authority has been proposed (as shown in Figure 19). Some of the current

departments will be re-organized under a Services Department. Also ICT and

Logistics departments will be introduced as a major division of the

Administration Department. Service oriented port organization structural

reform is an important factor for the development of port related logistics

sectors.

(l) Higher degree of port facilitation: One of the causes of delay in port

operations is a lack of or insufficient facilitation in the operations. Many

documents are still required and ports have complicated procedures, especially

for inexperienced port users. This is a big barrier to develop the logistics of

port operations. Thus a higher degree of port facilitation is also necessary

- 65 -

factor to be considered seriously when port structural reform is being carried

out.

(m) Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry stakeholders:

As Myanmar is a member of Association of South East Asian Nations

(ASEAN), the country has to meet the needs of regional agreements and

requirements. There are many time-line targets to reach the specific goals of

ASEAN. For example Myanmar is to be the chair of ASEAN in 2014, there

are ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) 2015 goals, To develop logistics in

the ASEAN region requires establishing a National level Logistics

Association (NLA). The benefits from a NLA are not only for port related

logistics sector development but other sectors as well. There will be many

stakeholders, both on the government side and private sector industries,

involved in the activities of the NLA. Cooperation and collaboration among

government and industry stakeholders is one of the important factors to be

considered for the enhancement of port related logistics sector development.

(n) Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law: The ASEAN Framework

Agreement on Multimodal Transport was signed on 17 November 2005 by all

the ASEAN member countries’ transport ministers. According to that

agreement, each country recognizes the need for the expeditious development

of integrated transport logistics services within ASEAN, as called for under

the ASEAN Framework Agreement for the integration of priority sectors. For

Myanmar to fully participate in the regional development of the logistics

industry enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law is a fundamental legal

requirement.

(o) Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each sector: Under

the title of the establishment of the National level Logistics Association (NLA)

in Myanmar, clearly defining the relevant rules and regulations for all sectors

is important and they must be followed by all the affected persons and

organizations.

- 66 -

Chapter 5: Analysis

5.1 Analytic Hierarchic Structure Model

For the optimization of the priority of the important elements to enhance the

port related logistics sectors, an analytic hierarchic structure is created. This study

illustrates a analytic hierarchic structure in Figure 24, which was established after

organizing the most important elements/ factors from the results of a pilot survey of

respondents from ports and related industries in different countries.

Figure 24: Analytic Hierarchic Structure for the Study

5.2 Questionnaire Survey

Once the pilot survey was completed and analyzed, the AHP structure (shown

in Figure 24) was constructed. In line with the design of an AHP structure, the

questionnaire survey sheet was developed as well (the detailed questionnaire used is

shown in Appendix 3). The questionnaire is a very important instrument and often the

best way of gathering the required information and views. However, a badly designed

questionnaire that is not easy to understand can be worthless as it may gather useless

Optimize priority of the factor for the enhancement of

Port logistics related sectors

Port related Infrastructure

Port Regulations related with

Logistics

Human resources Developments in Port

Sector

Port Organization Structural Reform

Contribution of port activities in establish

of NLA

Co

nta

iner

Ter

min

als

ICT

sy

stem

s in

port

opera

tion

s

Carg

o h

and

lin

g e

qu

ipm

ents

Reg

ula

tio

n o

f lo

gis

tics

serv

ices

an

d

serv

ice p

rov

ider

s

Lev

el

of

inte

gra

tio

n a

mon

g d

iffe

ren

t d

epart

ments

wit

h p

ort

opera

tion

s

Lib

era

lize t

he p

ort

regu

lati

on

t

o e

asy

acc

ess

HR

D o

f re

late

d a

ssocia

tion

s

Ed

uca

te t

he a

ware

nes

s o

f th

e

loca

l lo

gis

tics

pla

yers

/ e

xp

erts

In h

ou

se t

rain

ing

fo

r P

ort

lab

ou

rs

and

op

erat

ors

Serv

ice o

riente

d s

tructu

re r

eform

Hig

her

deg

ree o

f P

ort

faci

lita

tio

n

Po

rt P

riv

ati

zati

on

Mak

ing

cle

ar

defi

nit

ion

of

the r

ule

s an

d

reg

ula

tio

ns

for

eac

h s

ecto

r

Co

opera

te a

nd

co

llab

ora

te w

ith

g

overn

men

t

an

d i

nd

ust

ry s

tak

ehold

er

En

forc

em

ent

of

the M

ult

imo

dal

Tra

nsp

ort

L

aw

- 67 -

responses or none at all. Thus it was decided to conduct personal interviews using the

questionnaire designed for that purpose.

There were three target audience groups: terminal operator group, port users

group and administration level officer group. The procedure for conducting the

questionnaire interviews was as set out below:

(a) A request was made to the head of departments, management of the terminals

and freight forwarding companies to have a personal appointment

(b) The author visited the departments/ port terminals/ freight forwarder

companies

(c) The survey questionnaires were delivered and an explanation given of the

nature of the survey and questionnaire

(d) Waiting time given for respondents to answer questionnaires together

(e) Collect the answers at the end of the time allotted to complete the

questionnaires

For the terminal operator group Sule Pagoda Wharves (SPW), Asia World

Port Terminals (AWPT) and Myanmar Industrial Port (MIP) were selected for a

meeting by the author. Regarding the experience and management level of the

respondents, there were 8 officials from Sule Pagoda Wharves (SPW) and they are

middle level officers from Myanma Port Authority. Their working experiences range

from 20 years (most senior) to 4 years (most junior), with average work experience

about 7 years. From Asia World Port Terminals (AWPT), one of the private terminal

operators at Yangon port, all the respondents are middle to high level management

staff. Most of them are well experienced people with good awareness of policy and the

relationship of the governing body with port logistics. The last, but not least, terminal

operator was Myanmar Industrial Port (MIP). There were 16 staff (mix of officers and

other ranks) selected from that terminal and they were very eager to participate in the

questionnaire survey. Six of them are in middle to high level management roles and

they have more than 15 years experience in port management and operations. The

other ten are not officers but they are supervisors, foremen and heads of labour gangs

who are sufficiently aware of policy decisions relating to port operations. Level of

- 68 -

experiences of the respondents from terminal operator group is organized as shown in

Table 11.

Table 11: Respondents from the Terminal Operator Group

No. Organizations/Industries Number of

respondent

Management Experience

high Mid. > 10 yrs < 10 yrs

1 Sule Pagoda Wharf terminal 8 - 8 3 5

2 Asia World Port Terminal 8 3 5 7 1

3 Myanmar Industrial Port Terminal 16 3 3 10 6

For the port users group, the author met Myanmar International Freight

Forwarders Association (MIFFA), Myanmar Kinetic High-flyer (MKH) Co. Ltd., Ever

Flow River (ERF) group of companies and seven individual freight forwarders to get

responses to the research questionnaire. MIFFA is the only organization with

responsibility for the logistics and freight forwarding industry in Myanmar. The author

took the opportunity to meet the Board of Director (BOD) members during one of

BOD’s meetings and carried out the questionnaire survey at that time. All the BOD

members of MIFFA were elected because of extensive work experience in the freight

forwarding industry in Myanmar. Most are managing directors and chief executive

officers of their logistics companies and thus have a wide knowledge and skills

relating to logistics operations and management. The author requested another two

private logistics companies, Myanmar Kinetic High-flyer Co., Ltd. (MKH) and Ever

Flow River Group of companies (EFR). These two companies are the leaders of the

logistics industry in Myanmar. At the meeting with MKH three directors completed

the questionnaire survey. They have vast experience in both local and regional

logistics related management and operations. EFR is a group of companies working

with shipping lines, regional logistics companies, container services and many other

transportation related services. A meeting was held with directors of their subsidiary

companies to answer the questionnaire survey. There were 12 directors at the meeting

and they wanted to provide their knowledge and experience to enhance the

development of the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar. Moreover the author

met with 7 individuals who are regular agents of port users. The port user list was

- 69 -

obtained from Sule Pagoda Wharves (SPW) and officers from that terminal helped to

undertake the questionnaire survey. All the respondent agents have more than three

years’ experience with port operations at various terminals in Yangon port. Level of

experiences of the respondents from port user group is organized as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Respondents from the Port User Group


respondent



1 MIFFA BOD members 8 8 - 7 1

2 MKH Freight Forwarder 3 1 2 3 -

3 EFR Freight Forwarder groups 12 2 10 9 3

4 Individuals 7 - - 3 4

For the administration staff group there were two subgroups: selected officers

from Myanma Port Authority and six individual officers from other departments

selected by the author, and secondly selected officers from the Ministry of Transport

(Nay Pyi Taw) organized with help from an administration staff officer from the

Ministry. In total there were 15 staff selected from Myanma Port Authority office

working in the administration and personnel department. Five of them are high level

officers, including the head of that department and four middle level officers from

separate divisions. They all have at least 10 years experience in port administration

and management of the port personnel department. A further six officers comprised 3

middle level staff from the Customs department, 2 middle level officers from the

Trade department and 1 is a national level advisor to the government who is

personally known by the author. Regarding the Ministry of Transport, 16 officers

were selected from different departments in that Ministry. Six of them work in the

Minister’s office and have broad experience and a wider view at ministerial level of

policy concerning ports and port related operations and management. Another seven

officers were from the Department of Transport which has responsibility for reporting

to higher authorities on implementing the objectives of long and short term plans

developed by the departments and enterprises within the Ministry. So, they have a

holistic way of thinking about policy and strategic decisions about transport and

- 70 -

logistics matters. Among them, two respondents were from the Planning and Budget

section and another five from the Administration, Training and Records Section. The

final three respondents in the administration group are middle level officers from the

Directorate of Water Resources & Improvement of River Systems (DWIR) which is

responsible for improving navigation channels, stabilizing inland river ports, and other

navigational activities. Level of experiences of the respondents from administration

staff is organized as shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Respondents from the Administration Staff Group


respondent



1 Selected officers from Myanma

Port Authority

15 5 10 15 -

2 Individuals officers from other

departments

6 1 5 6 -

3 Selected officers from Ministry of

transport

16 6 10 12 4

Following the above procedure and arrangements for completion of the

questionnaires, all the respondents’ results were collected (a total of 99 respondents

from all 3 groups). Among them 27 respondents out of 99 showed an inconsistency

ratio < 0.1, 48 respondents out of 99 showed an inconsistency ratio <0.15 and 60

respondents out of 99 showed inconsistency ratio <0.20. Finally, the 48 responses with

an inconsistency ratio <0.15 were used for the survey analysis to get the proper

research result by AHP.

The total number of respondents from each organization/group and the

numbers used for the analysis are shown in Table 14. Analysis was undertaken of both

the group and individual responses.

- 71 -

Table 14: Survey Details of Respondents

No. Organizations/Industries Group

Number of

participants

All Acceptable

1 Sule Pagoda Wharf terminal

Terminal

Operators

8 3

2 Asia World Port Terminal 8 2

3 Myanmar Industrial Port Terminal 16 3

4 MIFFA BOD members

Port Users

8 4

5 MKH Freight Forwarder 3 1

6 EFR Freight Forwarder groups 12 5

7 Individuals 7 2

8 Selected officers from Myanma Port

Authority

Administration

15 10

9 Individuals officers from other

departments

6 4

10 Selected officers from Ministry of

transport

16 14

Total 99 48

Source: Analysis of Questionnaire Results

According to the respondents’ results, 25% of the Terminal Operators, 40% of

the Port Users and 75% of the Administration staff met the consistency requirement of

an inconsistency ratio less than 0.15.

5.3 Results of AHP Analysis

The main goal of this study is to get the optimal combination of the factors

with their relative priorities to construct and design the strategic and policy decision to

enhance the port related logistics sector in Myanmar.

The questionnaire results were arranged so that separate analysis could be

undertaken of all respondents and the responses from each of the three groups as

follows:

(a) All respondents

(b) Terminal Operators

- 72 -

(c) Port Users

(d) Administration office staff

Comparison analysis among different groups was made to get a clear idea for policy

decision making.

5.3.1 All Respondents (All Groups)

The first batch of the analysis was done on all respondents’ results. The

relative comparison matrix for decision making was constructed and Eigen Value

Method was used to get the relative importance among decision making factors of the

goal. The results of the questionnaire for the five main criteria are shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (All Respondents)

This shows the intensity of importance of the five criteria is: Port related

infrastructure 17.6%, Port regulations related with logistics 15.7%, HRD in port sector

18.9%, Port structural reform 28.1% and Contribution of port activities in establishing

a National level Logistics Association 19.7%. Amongst the 15 sub-criteria, the highest

priority factor is “Service oriented structure reform” (10.4%) and lowest priority factor

is “Level of integration among different departments with port operations” (4.5%).

- 73 -

Figure 26 which is a sensitivity-graph of the performance of each of the five

main criteria. “Port Structural Reform” is significantly higher than other criteria for

the enhancement of the port related logistics sectors.

Figure 26: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (All Respondents)

For the overall comparison of the all sub-criteria, Figure 27 shows the three

highest priorities are from the same criterion “Port structural reform” and the most

important factor is “Service oriented structure reform” of the Myanma Port Authority”

to form the strategic policy to achieve the goal.

Figure 27: Instant synthesis with Respect to the Goal (All Respondents)

5.3.2 Terminal Operators Group

The second batch of analysis was done on the terminal operators’ results.

From the 3 different port terminals from Yangon Port, total number of participants

was 32, but after screening with the inconsistency rule, only 8 respondents remained

(ie. only 25% of all terminal operator respondents met the consistency requirement).

The same procedure was undertaken to construct the relative comparison matrix in

order to get the relative importance of the decision making factors of the goal. The

- 74 -

results from the questionnaires for the five main criteria are shown in Figure 28. The

intensity of performance for each was: Port related infrastructure 16.8%, Port

regulations related to logistics 11.8%, HRD in port sector 29.6%, Port structural

reform 20.2% and Contribution of port activities in establishing a National level

Logistics Association 21.7%. Amongst the 15 sub-criteria, the highest priority is In-

house training for Port laborers and operators (11.8%) and the lowest priority factor is

Container terminal of infrastructure (3.8%).

Figure 28: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Terminal Operators)

Figure 29 is the sensitivity-graph of the performance of the five main criteria.

“Human Resources Development in Port Sector” is significantly higher than the other

criteria for the enhancement of the port related logistics sectors.

Figure 29: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Terminal Operators)

For the overall comparison of all sub-criteria, Figure 30 shows that the highest

priority is “in-house training for port laborers and operators” under the criteria of

“Human Resources Developments in Port Sector”. It was followed by two similar

- 75 -

levels of importance elements; namely “Local logistics players/experts” and “Making

clear definition of the rules and regulations for each sector”.

Figure 30: Instant Synthesis with Respect to the Goal (Terminal Operators)

5.3.2 Port Users Group

The third batch of the analysis was done on the Port User groups’ results. For

the 4 different sources of respondents from Myanmar International Freight Forwarders

Association (MIFFA), Myanmar Kinetic High-flyer (MKH) Co. Ltd., Ever Flow River

(ERF) group of companies and seven individual freight forwarders, the total number

of participants were 30, but after screening with the inconsistency rule, only 12

respondents remained (ie. about 40% of all port users’ respondents met the

consistency requirement). Figure 31 shows the Intensity of Importance of the five

main criteria.

The same procedure to construct the relative comparison matrix construction

was undertaken to get the relative importance among decision making factors for the

goal. The results for each of the five main criteria are shown in Figure 31. This shows

the intensity of importance is: Port related infrastructure 21.0%, Port regulations

related with logistics 18.6%, HRD in port sector 18.6%, Port structural reform 24.7%

and Contribution of port activities in establishing a National level Logistics

Association 17.1%. Among the 15 sub-criteria, the highest priority is “Higher degree

of Port facilitation” (9.7%) and the lowest priority factor is “Cooperate and collaborate

with government and industry stakeholders” (3.3%).

- 76 -

Figure 31: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Port Users)

As shown in Figure 32 which is a sensitivity-graph of the performance of the

main criteria, “Port Structural Reform” is significantly higher than other criteria for


Figure 32: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Port Users)

For the overall comparison of all sub-criteria, Figure 33 shows that the highest

priority is “Higher degree of Port facilitation” under the criteria of “Port Structural

Reform”. It was followed by two elements from different main factors; namely “ICT

systems in port operations” and “Service oriented structure reform”.

- 77 -

Figure 33: Instant Synthesis with respect to the Goal (Port Users)

5.3.3 Administration Staff Officers Group

The fourth and last batch of analysis was done on the Administration staff

officers’ results. From the 3 different sources of respondents from selected officers of

Myanma Port Authority, selected officers and staff of the Ministry of Transport, and

additional individual officers from other departments, the total number of participants

was 37, but after screening with the inconsistency rule, 28 respondents remained (ie.

about 76% of all administration staff officer respondents met the consistency

requirement). The same procedure for the relative comparison matrix construction was

undertaken to get the relative importance among decision making factors for the goal.

The results for each of the five main criteria are shown in Figure 34.

Figure 34: Intensity of Importance of five Main Criteria (Administration Staff)

The intensity of importance for each factor is: Port related infrastructure

16.2%, Port regulations related to logistics 15.6%, HRD in port sector 16.4%, Port

- 78 -

structural reform 32.0% and Contribution of port activities in establishing a National

level Logistics Association 19.9%. Among the 15 sub-criteria, the highest priority is

“Service oriented structure reform” (11.8%) and the lowest priority factor is “Level of

integration among different departments with port operations” (3.7%).

As shown in Figure 35 which is the sensitivity graph of the performance of the

main criteria, “Port Structural Reform” is significantly higher than other criteria for


Figure 35: Performance Sensitivity Graph for Main Criteria (Administration Staff)

For the overall comparison of all sub-criteria, Figure 36 shows that all three

highest priority factors are under the main criterion “Port Structural Reform” with the

following order of priority: “Service oriented structure reform”, “Port privitization”

and “Higher degree of port facilitation”.

Figure 36: Instant Synthesis with respect to the Goal (Administration Staff)

5.3.4 Comparison among Groups on Main Criteria

According to this AHP research different groups participating in port related

logistics activities, have different viewpoints that produce different results as to the

- 79 -

level and priority of importance of factors affecting the decision. Table 15 shows the

comparison among the 3 different groups on the 5 main criteria affecting the priority

of importance.

Table 15: Comparison of Group-wise Results on Main Criteria

Terminal Operators

Port Users

Administration Staffs

The terminal operators’ results show clearly different priorities for the criteria.

The highest priority is 0.247 (24.7%) and the lowest 0.118 (11.8%). Terminal

operators seem to realize the importance of upgrading themselves and they chose

“Human Resources Development in Port Sector”. They may want to be part of a

National Level operation within the port industry because they chose “Contribution

with Port Activities in the establishment of a National level Logistics Association” as

the second most important priority. But, they are less concerned with regulation

matters, giving “Port regulation related with logistics” the lowest priority.

The Port Users’ result shows that “Port Structural Reform” is expected to

improve the logistics related services. All the rest of the criteria are of similar

importance but they gave the lowest priority to “Contribution with port activities in

the establishment of a National level Logistics Association”.

The administration staff group result shows that they also put the highest

priority to “Port Structural Reform” (up to 0.321 or 32.1%), but they considered

“Contribution with port activities in the establishment of a National level Logistics

- 80 -

Association” as second priority with the remaining criteria having a similar priority

level. “Port Regulations related with logistics” had the lowest priority.

According to the density and priority level of importance of the most

important criterion identified by each group, the combined normalized result of the

importance of them is shown in Figure 37.

“Port Structural Reform” has the highest level of importance and all the remaining

criteria range from 70% to 55% in importance compared to this. This result, had an

inconsistency ratio of just 0.00871 with no missing judgments.

Figure 37: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons on Main Criteria

(Normalized Value)

5.3.5 Comparison among Groups on Sub-criteria

Using the AHP analysis to compare each group result with the all

respondents’ result, produced the following comparisons:

(a) Port Related Infrastructure

Under the category of “Port Related Infrastructure” criterion, all the groups

gave the same priority of importance in ranking order of “ICT systems in port

operations”, “Cargo handling equipments” and finally “Container Terminals” as

shown in Table 16. However there is a big difference in value from the terminal

operators’ opinion and a small difference in value from the administration staff

groups’ opinion in the prioritizing of the sub-criteria.

- 81 -

Table 16: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Port Related Infrastructure”

Terminal Operators

Port Users


According to the density and priority level of importance of the sub-criteria of

“Port related infrastructure” from each group, the combined normalized result of the

importance of them is shown in Figure 38. “ICT systems in port operations” has the

highest level of importance, followed by “Cargo handling equipment” with a small

difference in value and the last ranked sub-criterion is “Container Terminals” with an

importance level of 0.684. This result is produced with an inconsistency of just 0.001

with no missing judgments.

Figure 38: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Related Infrastructure

(Normalized Value)

(b) Port Regulations related to Logistics

Under the category of “Port Regulation Related with Logistics” main

criterion, the priority given by the terminal operators group differed from other two

groups but all the groups gave the least priority of importance to “Level of integration

among different departments with port operations” as shown in table 17. Terminal

operators selected “Regulation of logistics services and service providers” as their first

- 82 -

priority while the port users group and administration staff group chose “Liberalize the

port regulation to ease access” as the highest priority.

Table 17: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Port Regulations Related to

Logistics”

Terminal Operators

Port Users



“Port Regulations Related with Logistics” from each group, the combined normalized

result of their importance is shown in Figure 39. “Liberalize the port regulation to ease

access” is the highest level of importance, followed by “Regulation of logistics

services and service providers” with a small difference in value and the last sub-

criterion is “Level of integration among different departments with port operations” -

all groups agreed that priority of importance with a level of 0.736. For this result, the

inconsistency ratio is just 0.00159 with no missing judgments.

Figure 39: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Regulations related to

Logistics (Normalized Value)

- 83 -

(c) Human Resources Development in Port Sector

For the category of “Human Resources Development in Port Sector” main

criterion, the selection results from each group totally differed from each of the other

group’s results. This criterion may be the most confused outcome of the different

groups. Terminal operators have a strong belief in “In house training for Port laborers

and operators” as the first important factor but the other two groups gave this only

second priority with a small difference in value from their first priority selection.

“HRD of related associations” took last position in the results of terminal operators

and port users, but it was given the highest priority by the administration staff group.

Table 18 shows those comparisons of group-wise results.

Table 18: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Human Resources Development

in Port Sector”

Terminal Operators

Port Users


According to the density and priority level of importance of the sub-criteria

“Human Resources Development in Port Sector” from each group, the combined

normalized result of the importance of them is as shown in Figure 40. “In house

training for port laborers and operators” is the highest level of importance, followed

by “HRD of related associations” as second level of importance and the lowest ranked

sub-criterion is “Local logistics players/ experts” with an importance level of 0.857.

This criterion has the smallest gaps between its sub-criteria compared with all other

factors. The differences between each sub criteria are less than 10%. For this result,

inconsistency is just 0.00028 with no missing judgments.

- 84 -

Figure 40: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Human Resources

Developments in Port Sector (Normalized Value)

(d) Port Structural Reform

Regarding the criterion “Port Structural Reform”, it is similar to the previous

criterion in that the rank given by each group totally differed from one another.

Terminal operators and administration staff have a strong belief in “Service oriented

structural reform” to be the most important factor but port users and administration

staff each gave a totally different ranking to “Higher degree of port facilitation”.

While port users marked that factor as having the highest priority of importance

administration staff gave it the lowest priority. Table 19 shows these detailed

comparisons of group-wise results.

Table 19: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Port Structural Reform”

Terminal Operators

Port Users

Administration Staff

- 85 -

Figure 41: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Port Structural Reform

(Normalized Value)


“Port Structural Reform” from each group, the combined normalized result of the

importance of them was is shown in Figure 41. “Service oriented structure reform”

took the highest position of importance, followed by “Higher degree of port

facilitation” and then “Port privatization”. For this result, inconsistency is just 0.00915

with no missing judgments.

(e) Contribution of Port Activities in Establishment of NLA

Under the category of “Contribution of Port Activities in Establishment of

National level Logistics Association” main criterion, all the groups gave the same

priority of importance in the order of “Making clear definition of the rules and

regulations for each sector”, “Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law” and

“Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry stakeholders”.

Table 20: Comparison of Group-wise Results on “Contribution of Port Activities in

Establishment of National Level Logistics Association”

Terminal Operators

Port Users

Administration Staff

- 86 -

The density and priority level of importance of the sub-criteria of

“Contribution of Port Activities in Establishment of National level Logistics

Association” from each group, the combined normalized result of their importance is

shown in Figure 42. “Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each

sector” has the highest level of importance, followed by “Enforcement of the

Multimodal Transport Law” as the second level of importance while the lowest

ranking sub-criterion is “Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry

stakeholders” which all the groups agreed. For this result, inconsistency is just

0.00049 with no missing judgments.

Figure 42: Priorities derived from Pairwise Comparisons – Contribution of Port

Activities in Establishment of NLA (Normalized Value)

5.3.6 Synthesis of Importance of All Factors

Synthesizing the results from all respondents combined together with respect

to the goal of optimizing the priority of the factors to enhance the port logistics related

sectors is shown in Figure 43. The first three factors are outstanding in priority of

importance compared with the others. They are, in order of priority: “Service oriented

structure reform”, “Higher degree of port facilitation” and “Port privatization”. All

these sub-criteria are under the main criterion of “Port Structural reform” and this

shows that reforming the structure of the port will be the most important factor to

improve port related logistics industries and activities.

The factors which occupy the 4 to12 priority positions are close together in

their rankings. The differences between them are less than 0.004. This means there are

small differences in importance between their priorities and they all need to be

considered. The three lowest priority factors are “Cooperate and collaborate with

- 87 -

government and industry stakeholders” (13th

position) from the main criterion of

“Contribution of Port Activities in Establishment of NLA”, “Container Terminals”

(14th

position) from the main criterion of “Port Related Infrastructure”, and “Level of

integration among different departments with port operations” (15th

or last position)

from the main criterion of “Port Regulations related to Logistics”.

Figure 43: Synthesis Importance of All Factors

- 88 -

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Conclusion

The newly elected President of Myanmar launched a series of reforms after

his government took office in 2011. After reforming the political system, much

progress can be seen in many areas such as improved international relations with other

countries, step by step lifting of economic sanctions by the European Union and

United States of America, and reform and improvement of the banking and financial

systems. A modern, efficient port industry is vital to the development of the country.

The port industry in Myanmar has gradually changed over the past two decades. Now

is the right time to have more visible change and structural reform of the port industry,

especially development of the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar. The strategic

and policy decision for the port policy reform is complicated, consisting of many

elements to be considered. The results of this study will be helpful in the consideration

of port policy reform.

This research study was initially designed to identify how to prioritize the

important elements which have to be consisted in the policy decision by using

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a problem solving technique to establish priorities

in multivariate environments.

The study provides comparisons in the priority of importance of the 5 major

criteria namely: (a) port related infrastructure for the logistics activities, (b) port

regulations related to logistics, (c) human resources development in the port sector, (d)

current port structure reform in Myanmar, and (e) contribution of port activities in

establishing a National level Logistics Association (NLA) and the 3 sub-criteria for

each main criterion. In addition there are comparisons between the results from three

respondent groups: Terminal Operators, Port Users and Administration Staff. These

comparisons give a clear idea of the priorities of the important elements influencing

policy decisions for port policy and port reform. This research study will make a

useful contribution for Myanma Port Authority (MPA) to lay down strategic and

policy decisions to enhance the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar.

- 89 -

According to the results of the AHP data analysis from the groups of

respondents, it is clear from the all respondents’ result that “Service Oriented

Structural Reform” is the most important factor to be considered for the policy

decision. If the priorities in each individual group’s results have to be considered

different approaches will have to be taken with each group.

Regarding the five most important elements chosen by the terminal operators

group, these demonstrate a high intention to improve themselves to give better service

in the port related logistics activities. They also give high priority to participate and

contribute in a national level logistics association but they want clear definition of the

rules and regulations for each sector and the duties and responsibilities expected of

them. They also give high priority to the importance of local logistics players and

experts. This means that current terminal operator staff understood well about lagging

behind the logistics sectors of regional and neighbouring countries. Moreover, they

also gave high priority to human resource development of related associations. During

their daily activities in the ports they work with port users. Therefore knowledge and

education of both terminal operators and port users have similar importance. The fifth

priority of the group is to reform the organization structure to be more service oriented.

According to the analysis results, the policy decision for the terminal operators group

emphasizes training and skill improvement of all parties working in port operations

and needs to lay down clear easy to understand rules, regulations and definitions. Port

structural reform will also need to be incorporated in the policy decision.

Regarding the five most important elements chosen by the port users group,

they require a higher level of port facilitation because they believe this can smooth the

logistics operations of the ports. They also want to use computerized systems for their

port related operations. They understood service oriented structure reform is also a

vital factor to enhance logistics development. With their experience of problems from

delays in the operations of cargo acceptance and delivery, they emphasize the need for

cargo handling equipment as the 4th out of 5 highest priorities. Their 5th choice is the

liberalization of port regulations to ease access. According to the results of the

analysis the policy decision for the port users group is more concerned with port

- 90 -

organization reform, improvement of the port related infrastructure, and simplifying

regulatory matters.

Regarding the five most important elements chosen by the administration staff

group, they did incisively rank port structural reform as the highest priority. With their

administrative background their approach is “top down” and more theoretical. They

have a very strong faith in reform being the core element of development of the port

related logistics industry. The first three priorities are also from the same criterion, in

order of importance “Service oriented structural reform”, “Port privatization”, and

“Higher degree of port facilitation”. In addition, they also emphasize the establishment

of the National level Logistic Association (NLA). Other important factors are from

that criterion, namely “Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each

sector” and “enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law”. According to the results

from the analysis the policy decision from the administration staff group should

emphasize port organizational reform and to establish the National level Logistics

Association to provide a level playground for logistics in the region.

6.2 Recommendations

To get the optimal benefits for all groups, the strategic and policy decision

should place most emphasis on the structural reform of port organization as a core

policy for the enhancement of the port related logistics sectors. There will be two

directions for the follow-up strategy. On one hand, the policy decision should put

effort into establishing the National level Logistics Association (NLA) to meet the

needs of the 2015 goals of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). At the same

time internal human resources development for personnel in the port and port related

industries should be carried out. This is in essence similar to the philosophy “Think

global, make local”. At the same time, the port industry has to have advanced

infrastructure such as electronic port management and operations systems and modern

cargo handling equipment. All these activities have to take place within a proper legal

framework. The port related rules and regulations should be clearly defined and easily

accessible.

- 91 -

6.3 Future Research

This research study is based on the past and current situation of the port

industry in Myanmar, and a review of literature focused on port related logistics sector

development. A more comprehensive and thorough study should be carried out with a

broader range of respondents concerned with strategic and policy decisions for the

port industry.

There are some drawbacks in this research. First, the time to conduct the

research was limited, the respondents lacked experience and practice in answering this

type of questionnaire (after checking some respondents’ responses were inconsistent),

and there the number of qualified respondents from different groups was not balanced.

Future studies should have a wider range of respondents and allow more time

for them to respond. Actually, the port related logistics sector covers a broader range

of activities a greater number of organizations included in this study. This should be

rectified in any future study which should also include transport related government

agencies such as Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Rail Transport and the City Public

Transportation Committee.

- 92 -

References

AFP (2013). World Bank sees 'enormous potential' in Myanmar, Business news, retrieved

February 21, 2013 from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/

Alonso, J. A. & Lamata, M. T. (2006), “Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A

new approach”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based

Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2006) 445−459

ASEAN (2007), Roadmap towards an integrated and competitive maritime transport in

ASEAN, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei

ASEAN (2008), ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat

Audrey M. A. B. & Dundar F. K. (2007), Analytic Hierarchy Process for Technology

Policy: Case Study the Costa Rican Digital Divide, PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 5-9

August,Portland,Oregon-USA.

Baltazar, R. & Brooks, M. R., (2007), “Port governance, Devolution and the matching

framework: A configuration theory approach”, Devolution, Port Governance and Port

Performance Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 17, 379-403

Berrittella, M., Certa, A., Enea, M. and Zito, P. (2007), An Analytic Hierarchy Process for

The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts, CCMP –

Climate Change Modelling and Policy, Corso Magenta, 63, 2012, 3 Milano (I),

Brooks, M. R. & Cullinane, K. (2007), “Introduction”, Devolution, Port Governance and

Port Performance Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 17, 3- 28

Carbone, V. & Martino, M. D. (2003), “The changing role of ports in supply-chain

management: an empirical analysis, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 30, No. 4,

305-320

Cheon. S. H. (2007), Roles of Ownership, Corporate structure and inter-port competition,

World Port Institutions and Productivity:, Dissertation for PhD, University of

California.

Dolan, J. G. (2008), Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: The

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Patient Education and Counseling, Volume 73,

Issue 3, December 2008, 418-425

Forman, E. H. & Gass, S. I. (2001), The Analytic Hierarchy Process – An Exposition,

retrieved on Oct 18, 2012 from http://www.johnsaunders.com/papers/

http://www.johnsaunders.com/papers/

- 93 -

Gengyong, Ynuqi, Z. & Wangyi (2011), Evaluation and Strategic Thinking of Port

Logistics Competitiveness in China: logistics infrastructure network perspectives,

retrieved on March 5, 2013 from http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/events/pe2011/

Haas, R. & Meixner, O. (2009), An Illustrated Guide to the ANALYTIC HIERARCHY

PROCESS, Lecture Notes, Institute of Marketing & Innovation, University of Natural

Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna. retrieved on Oct 21, 2012 from

http://www.boku.ac.at/mi/

Hauser, D. & Tadikamalla, P. (1996), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain

environment: A simulation approach, European Journal of Operational Research,

Volume 91, Issue 1, 24 May 1996, 27-37

Heizer, J., & Render, B. (1993), “Production and Operations Management: Strategies and

Tactics”, Allyn Bacon, 25,26

Irfan, S. & Hwang J. S. (2009a), The Application of AHP to Evaluate Information Security

Policy Decision Making, International Journal of Simulation, Systems, Science and

Technology, Vol. 10, No. 5, May 2009

Irfan, S. & Hwang J. S. (2009b), The Application of AHP Model to Guide Decision

Makers: A Case Study of E-Banking Security, 2009 Fourth International Conference on

Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology,

JICA (2012), “the Preparatory Study on the Project for Expansion of Yangon Port in

Thilawa Area in Myanmar”, departmental report from Japan International

Cooperation Agency,

Kim, A. J., Lee, K. D., Cho, G. I. & Ryoo D. K. (2009), “The motivation of the Strategic

Alliance between Ports Using AHP”, International Journal of Navigation and port

Research, Vol. 33, No. 7, 469-476

Lee, D. J. & Hwang, J. H. (2010), Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear

technology using the analytic hierarchy process: A Korean case, Energy Policy, Volume

38, Issue 1, January 2010, 161-167

Lin, C. H., Wen, L. & Tsai, Y. M. (2010), “Applying decision-making tools to national e-

waste recycling policy: An example of Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Waste

Management, Vol 30, Issue 5, May 2010, 863-869

Matthew, J. L. & Robert, L. N. (2008), “The analytic hierarchy process in medical and

health care decision making: A literature review”, European Journal of Operational

Research, Vol 189, Issue 1, 16 August 2008, 194-207

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/events/pe2011/

http://www.boku.ac.at/mi/

- 94 -

Meersman, H., Voorde, E. V. & Vanelslander, T. (2007), “Fighting for money investments

and capacity: Port governance and devolution in Belgium”, Devolution, Port

Governance and Port Performance Research in Transportation Economics, Vol 17, 85-

107

Mei, X., Rosso, R., Huang, G. L. & Nie, G. S. (1989), Application of analytical hierarchy

process to water resources policy and management in Beijing, China, Closing the Gap

Between Theory and Practice (Proceedings of the Baltimore Symposium, May 1989) ,

IAHS Publ. no. 180, 1989

Merritt, M. F. (2006), Planning and Evaluation with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,

retrieved February 24, 2013, http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

Mi, Z., & Hanbin, X. (2010), “Research on Port Logistics Development Model Based on

Supply Chain Management”, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on

Innovation & Management,

Mortazavi, M., Ghanbari, L., Rajabbeigi, M. & Mokhtari, H. (2009), Prioritizing

agricultural research projects with emphasis on analytic hierarchy process (AHP),

EFITA conference ’09

MOT (2013), “Myanmar Transport Infrastructure and Logistics Development”, unpublished

presentation from Ministry of Transport, Chatrium Hotel, Yangon.

MPA (2013), Myanma Port Authority information from web address retrieved March 2,

2013 http://www.mpa.gov.mm

MPA (n.d. a), History of the Myanma Port Authority, unpublished paper as the

departmental record.

MPA (n.d. b), various documents and presentations from Myanma Port Authority including

unpublished papers for departmental use.

Mustra, M. (2011), ‘Border management modernization and the trade supply chain’, in

McLinden, G., Fanta, E., Widdowson, D., Doyle, T., Border management

modernization, The World Bank Group, Washington DC, Chapter 3, 23-35.

Myanmar Business Network (2011). UN High Representative: "Myanmar in an excellent

position to graduate from the Least Developed Country (LDC) status by 2020",

retrieved Oct 1, 2012 from http://www.myanmar-business.org/2011/06/un-high-

representative-myanmar-in.html

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

http://www.mpa.gov.mm/

http://www.myanmar-business.org/2011/06/un-high-representative-myanmar-in.html

http://www.myanmar-business.org/2011/06/un-high-representative-myanmar-in.html

- 95 -

Nakagawa, Y., Nasu, N., Saito, T. & Yamaguchi, N. (2010), “Analytic hierarchy based

policy design method (AHPo) for solving societal problems that require a multifaceted

approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 207, Issue 3, 16 December

2010, 1545-1553

Notteboom, T. (2007), “Strategic challenges to container ports in a changing market

environment”, Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance Research in

Transportation Economics, Vol 17, 29-52

Ramanathan, R. (2001), “A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for

environmental impact assessment”, Journal of Environmental Management (2001), 63,

27–35

Saaty, T. L. (2008), “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, International

Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008

Serhat, B. & Harun, S. (2011), “Analyzing the Dependency Between National Logistics

Performance and Competitiveness: Which Logistics Competence is Core for National

Strategy?”, Journal of Competitiveness, Issue 4/2011

Shin, T., Kim, C. B., Ahn, Y. H., Kim, H. Y., Cha, B. H., Uh, Y., Lee, J. H., Hyun, S. J.

Lee, D. H. & Go, U. Y. (2009), The comparative evaluation of expanded national

immunization policies in Korea using an analytic hierarchy process, Vaccine, Volume

27, Issue 5, 29 January 2009, 792-802

Sternberg, E. (1998). Corporate governance: Accountability in the marketplace. London:

Institute of Economic Affairs.

Wei, R., Lijuan, W. & Lijuan, D.（2007），research on Evaluation Method of Port

Logistics Competitiveness Research. Market Modernization 112：146-147

World Bank (2007), Port Reform Toolkit, Module 2: The evolution of ports in a competitive

world, Washington DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2013), What is Governance?: Arriving at a Common Understanding of

“Governance:” , retrieved March 1, 2013 from http://web.worldbank.org

World Bank (n.d.). Logistics Performance Index, International LPI: ranking, retrieved Sept

15, 2012 from http://www1.worldbank.org/ PREM/LPI/ tradesurvey/ mode1b.asp

http://www1.worldbank.org/

- 96 -

Appendix 1: Pilot Survey

< Pilot survey for evaluation of the factors >

4th March, 2013

Good day Sir,

I’m a staff from Myanma Port Authority, the Union of Republic of Myanmar. I’ve

been studying for my PhD in Shipping Management Department, Korea Maritime

University.

I’m writing a paper to give the priority of the strategic and policy decision for the

enhancement of the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar, so as to obtain the

highest possible benefits for the port users and port logistics related sectors.

This paper is to analyze and prioritize the different factors by using Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) to figure out which will be the highest to lowest priority to

assist the strategic and policy decision. There are so many factors under the pre-

described criteria. To reduce the number of factors and concentrate most important

factors before the construction of the AHP model, please give your suggestion and

choice on the attach sheet.

The answers of this survey questions will be only used for doing research, without

being disclosed to others.

Your serious answer will be a great help to carry out this research.

Thanks for your precious time and kind attention.

Supervisor: Dong-Keun, Ryoo

Student: Myo Nyein Aye

Student ID: 20107141

Mobile: (+82) 010 2292 7141

e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

- 97 -

NLA = National Logistics Association

For the main criteria of the optimization of the priority of the factors for the

enhancement of port logistics related sectors as below.

Main Item Description

Port related

Infrastructure

There are port related infrastructures which are mainly supporting

roles of the development of the logistics related sectors

Port Regulations

related with

Logistics

There are various regulations which are mainly in line with

development of the logistics related sectors

Human resources

Developments in

Port Sector

There are many different levels of the people/ staff/ person

related to the port operations. List out some of them who are

closely related to the logistics development

Port Reform Nowadays, port structure and management has been analyzed to

reform. List out the factors which are largely involve in the port

related logistics sector development

Contribution of

port activities in

establish of NLA

National level Logistics Association will be established soon in

Myanmar. To have a better cooperation and contribution from the

port industry, list out the possible factors from the port operation

point of view.

This research is made to collect advices on the priority of the importance possible

factors under each and every criterion.

1. Port related Infrastructure

Please give the priority of importance to the possible factors under the category of the

port related infrastructure related with development of logistics sectors.





Logistics

Human resources Developments in

Port Sector

Port Structural

Reform

Contribution of port activities in establish of NLA

- 98 -

Name of the factors Give Priority

Container Terminals 1 2 3 4 5

Multipurpose terminals 1 2 3 4 5

Depots and ICDs 1 2 3 4 5

ICT systems in port operations 1 2 3 4 5

Road and rail linkages with port area 1 2 3 4 5

Cargo handling equipments 1 2 3 4 5

Office facilities for Customs and other related organizations 1 2 3 4 5

Priority of importance ( 1=Extreme, 2=very strong, 3=Strong, 4=Moderate, 5=Slight )

2. Port Regulations related with Logistics


Port Regulations related with Logistics in line with development of logistics sectors.


Regulation of logistics services and service providers 1 2 3 4 5

Level of integration among different departments with port operations 1 2 3 4 5

Regulation enforcement regarding to regional level 1 2 3 4 5

Standardize IMO Regulation (e.g. FAL Forms 7) 1 2 3 4 5

Liberalize the port regulation to easy access 1 2 3 4 5


3. Human resources Developments in Port Sector


Human resources Developments in Port Sector closely related to the logistics

development.


HRD of related associations 1 2 3 4 5

In house training for Port labours and operators 1 2 3 4 5

Local logistics players / experts 1 2 3 4 5

Awareness of the public and port users 1 2 3 4 5

Educating the Government staff in port logistics related departments 1 2 3 4 5

Recruit new staffs who have logistics academic background 1 2 3 4 5

Train the staffs with regional level logistics institutions 1 2 3 4 5


- 99 -

4. Port reform

Please give the priority of importance to the possible factors that will be involve in

port structure and management reform, and largely involve in the port related logistics

sector development as well.


Port Privatization 1 2 3 4 5

Service oriented structure reform 1 2 3 4 5

Higher degree of Port facilitation 1 2 3 4 5

Change the tariff system more flexible 1 2 3 4 5

Private participation in port management body 1 2 3 4 5

Liberalize the one country-one agency system at port operation 1 2 3 4 5


5. Contribution of port activities in establish of National Logistics Association

Please give the priority of importance to the possible factors from the port operation

point of view to better contribution of the establishment of National level Logistics

Association in Myanmar.


Regional integration related with port 1 2 3 4 5

Integration level of other transport related Private organizations 1 2 3 4 5

Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry stakeholder 1 2 3 4 5

Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law 1 2 3 4 5

Exercise and follow up of the regional level intergovernmental agreements 1 2 3 4 5

Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each sector 1 2 3 4 5


- 100 -

Appendix 2: List of Participants for Pilot Survey

No. Name Country Organization

1 Capt.AL-GARAWY,

Salem Gabbar Hussein Iraq Director, Iraq Shipping Co.,Ltd

2 BOUDIA, Rachida Algeria Senior Manager, Algeria Shipping Co,.Ltd

3 BUBA, Shittima Nigeria Senior Manager, Nigeria Port Authority

4 DASHE, Cyril Tanko Nigeria Deputy Manager, Nigeria Port Authority

5 FILARDI, Ari Indonesia Senior Staff, Pelabuhan Indonesia 3

6 KARMUN, Indrianisari

Kartono Indonesia Senior Staff, Indonesian port corporation 2

7 Khuong, Duy Hiep Vietnam Port Planning Engineer, Vietnam Port

Authority

8 KYAW, Wanna Myanmar Assistant Manager, Myanma Port Authority

9 MAMMAN, Musa A Nigeria Assistant Manager, Nigeria Port Authority

10 MANNAN, Mohammed

Abdul Bangladesh Deputy Director, Inland water Transport

11 MOHAMED, Hassan

Muzni Maldives Assistant General Manager, HR Department

12 MULWA, Denis

Musyoka Kenya Deputy Manager, Kenya Port Authority

13 MUSA, Mathias Nigeria Assistant Manager, Nigeria Port Authority

14 OYEWOLE, Olayinka

Omobukola Nigeria Assistant Manager, Nigeria Port Authority

15 RABARY, Solofoson

Jean Madagasca

CEO - Regulation Manager, APMF

madagascar

16 RIVAI, Miftah Nurjanah Indonesia Senior Staff, Indonesian port corporation 2

17 YE, Xiaobo China Senior Staff, China Shipping Co.,Ltd

18 YULFIA, Desi Indonesia Senior Staff, Indonesian port corporation 2

19 S. M. Sakhawat

MAHMUD Bangladesh

Assistant Manager, Bangladesh Shipping

Co., Ltd.,

20 Naing Myint Myanmar HNN freight forwarding services

21 Somethy Ouk Cambodia Sihanoukville Autonomous Port (PAS)

- 101 -

No. Name Country Organization

22 Viro Thong Cambodia Sihanoukville Autonomous Port (PAS)

23 Sophornna Ros Cambodia Ministry of Public Works and Transport

24 Sokol Nhean Cambodia Kampuchea Shipping Agency & Brokers

25 Keat Chea Cambodia Council for the Development of

Cambodia

26 Dwi Wahyuniarti

Prabowo

Indonesia Ministry of Trade of Republic of Indonesia

27 Tin Ngwe Myanmar Myanmar Port Authority, Ministry of

Transport

28 Khin Maung Kyaing Myanmar Myanmar International Freight

Forwarders Association (MIFFA)

29 Raul Bollozos Philippines Philippines Port Authority

30 Maria Belenda Ambi Philippines Department of Trade and Industry

31 Norbert Comafay Philippines Bureau of Customs

32 Romeo Montenegro Philippines Mindanao Development authority

(MinDA)

33 Nguyen Huynh Luu

Phuong

Vietnam Department of Transport Economics, Ho Chi

Minh University of Transport

34 Phuong Dung Do Vietnam Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam

35 Cuong Le Vietnam Saigon Port Ba Ria Vung Tau Branch

36 Thi Mai Nguyen Vietnam Customs Reform and Modernization

Board

37 Dr. Ruth Banomyong Thailand Centre for Logistics Research, Thammasat

Business School, Thammasat University,

Bangkok

38 Guntur Sugiyarto Philippines Economics and Research Department, Asian

Development Bank

39 Henry Sandee Indonesia The World Bank

40 Jeffrey Rae Australia Chief Economist, ITS Global

41 Elissa Macleod Australia the Australian APEC Study Centre,

Melbourne

- 102 -

Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire

<Strategic and Policy Decision for the enhancement of

the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar>

17th March, 2013

Good day Sir,

I’m a staff from Myanma Port Authority, the Union of Republic of Myanmar. I’ve

been studying for my PhD in Shipping Management Department, Korea Maritime

University.

I’m writing a paper to give the priority of the strategic and policy decision for the

enhancement of the port related logistics sectors in Myanmar, so as to obtain the

highest possible benefits for the port users and port logistics related sectors.

This paper is to analyze and prioritize the different factors by using Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) to figure out which will be the highest to lowest priority

to assist the strategic and policy decision.

The answers of this survey questions will be only used for doing research, without

being disclosed to others.

Your serious answer will be a great help to carry out this research.

Thanks for your precious time and kind attention.

Supervisor: Dong-Keun, Ryoo

Student: Myo Nyein Aye

Student ID: 20107141

Mobile: (+82) 010 2292 7141

e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

- 103 -

<AHP Structure>

NLA= National level Logistics Association

<Specification to the Items>

For evaluating the optimization of the priority for the enhancement of Port logistics

related sectors, we listed out 15 specific factors in 4 main items according to the result

of the pilot survey of expert’s opinion as below.

Main Item Specific Factor

Port related

Infrastructure

Container Terminals

ICT systems in port operations

Cargo handling equipments

Port Regulations related

with Logistics

Regulation of logistics services and service providers

Level of integration among different departments with port

operations

Liberalize the port regulation to easy access

Human resources

Developments in Port

Sector


In house training for Port labours and operators

Local logistics players / experts

Port Reform

Port Privatization

Service oriented structure reform

Higher degree of Port facilitation





Logistics

Human resources Developments in Port

Sector

Port Organization Structural Reform

Contribution of port activities in establish

of NLA

Co

nta

iner

Ter

min

als

ICT

sy

stem

s in

port

opera

tion

s

Carg

o h

and

lin

g e

qu

ipm

ents

Reg

ula

tio

n o

f lo

gis

tics

serv

ices

an

d s

ervic

e p

rov

iders

Lev

el

of

inte

gra

tio

n a

mon

g d

iffe

ren

t d

epart

ments

wit

h p

ort

opera

tion

s

Lib

era

lize t

he p

ort

regu

lati

on

t

o e

asy

acc

ess

HR

D o

f re

late

d a

ssocia

tion

s

Ed

uca

te t

he a

ware

nes

s o

f th

e

loca

l lo

gis

tics

pla

yers

/ e

xp

erts

In h

ou

se t

rain

ing

fo

r P

ort

lab

ou

rs

and

op

erat

ors

Serv

ice o

riente

d s

tructu

re r

eform

Hig

her

deg

ree o

f P

ort

faci

lita

tio

n

Po

rt P

riv

ati

zati

on

Mak

ing

cle

ar

defi

nit

ion

of

the r

ule

s an

d

reg

ula

tio

ns

for

eac

h s

ecto

r

Co

opera

te a

nd

co

llab

ora

te w

ith

g

overn

men

t

an

d i

nd

ust

ry s

tak

ehold

er

En

forc

em

ent

of

the M

ult

imo

dal

Tra

nsp

ort

L

aw

- 104 -


activities in establish of

NLA

Cooperate and collaborate with government and industry

stakeholder

Enforcement of the Multimodal Transport Law

Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each sector

<Example>

This research is made to collect advices on the importance intensities of the factors

which considered influence the port’s competitive ability by using pair-wise

comparison.

For example, it is considered to be “moderate importance” of “Port related

Infrastructure” between “Port related Infrastructure” and “Port Regulations related

with Logistics”, so make a remark under the corresponding importance degree like

below.

Standard Important Same Important

Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Port related

Infrastructure

O

Port

Regulations

related with Logistics

<Standard of Importance intensity>

Below are the scales of importance intensity for evaluating.

Importance Definition

1 equal importance

3 moderate importance

5 strong importance

7 very strong importance

9 absolute importance

2, 4, 6, 8 importance degree are in the middle of above scales

- 105 -

<Questionnaire>

1. Please make a remark below the corresponding importance intensity in every line

based on comparison between every 2 of the 5 items (Port related Infrastructure, Port

Regulations related with Logistics, Human resources Developments in Port Sector,

Port Structural Reform, Contribution of port activities in establish of National

Logistics Association).

Standard

Important Same Important

Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Port related

Infrastructure

Port

Regulations related with

Logistics

Port related

Infrastructure

HR

Developments

in

Port Sector

Port related

Infrastructure

Port Structural

Reform

Port related

Infrastructure

Contribution

of port activities in

NLA

Port Regulations

related with

Logistics

HR

Developments

in Port Sector

Port Regulations

related with

Logistics

Port Structural

Reform

Port Regulations

related with Logistics

Contribution

of port activities in

NLA

HR Developments

in

Port Sector

Port Structural

Reform

HR Developments

in

Port Sector

Contribution

of port

activities in NLA

Port Structural Reform


activities in

NLA

- 106 -



based on comparison between every 2 of the three factors “Container Terminals”,

“ICT systems in port operations” and “Cargo handling equipments” in “Port related

Infrastructure”.

Standard

Important Same Important

Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Container

Terminals

ICT systems in

port operations

Container

Terminals

Cargo handling

equipments

ICT systems in

port operations

Cargo handling

equipments

Port Regulations related with Logistics


based on comparison between every 2 of the three factors “Regulation of logistics

services and service providers”, “Level of integration among different departments

with port operations” and “Liberalize the port regulation to easy access” in “Port

Regulations related with Logistics”.


Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Regulation of

logistics services

and service providers

Level of integration

among different

departments

Regulation of logistics services

and service

providers

Liberalize the port regulation to easy

access

Level of integration

among different

departments

Liberalize the port

regulation to easy

access

- 107 -

Human resources Developments in Port Sector


based on comparison between every 2 of the three factors “HRD of related

associations”, “In house training for Port labours and operators” and “Local logistics

players / experts” in “Human resources Developments in Port Sector”.


Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


In house training for Port labours

and operators

HRD of related

associations

Local logistics

players / experts

In house training for

Port labours and

operators

Local logistics

players / experts

Port Structural Reform


based on comparison between every 2 of the three factors “Port Privatization”,

“Service oriented structure reform” and “Higher degree of Port facilitation” in “Port

Structural Reform”.


Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Port Privatization

Service oriented

structure reform

Port Privatization

Higher degree of

Port facilitation

Service oriented

structure reform

Higher degree of

Port facilitation

- 108 -

Contribution of port activities in establish of National level Logistics Association


based on comparison between every 2 of the three factors “Cooperate and collaborate

with government and industry stakeholder”, “Enforcement of the Multimodal

Transport Law” and “Making clear definition of the rules and regulations for each

sector” in “Contribution of port activities in establish of National Logistics

Association”.


Standard 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cooperate and

collaborate with

stakeholder

Enforcement of the

Multimodal

Transport Law

Cooperate and

collaborate with

stakeholder

Making clear

definition of the

rules and regulations for each

sector

Enforcement of the

Multimodal

Transport Law

Making clear

definition of the

rules and

regulations for each sector

dissertation (Dr. Myo NA)

Documents

Transcript of dissertation (Dr. Myo NA)