Source: World Bank. Note: A value of 0 represents a time performance similar to the global average. A value above zero represents a time performance above the global average. A negative value indicates a time performance below the global average.
The World Bank developed the Container Port Productivity Index (CPPI) as a measure to track the efficiency of container ports through containership AIS data. It relies on the time container ships spend at ports, which includes their arrival, cargo operations (loading and unloading), and their departure. The index is adjusted (weighted) according to ship sizes (bigger ships spend more time) and call sizes (more cargo handled takes more time), to improve how comparable ports are. The 2023 iteration of the index includes more than 182,000 container vessel calls covering 405 ports and spread across the whole year. To be included, a port needs to have 24 calls by a container ship during the calendar year. For ports containing several container terminals, the data is aggregated. Once the weighted average time values for all included ports are compiled, the CPPI for each port is compiled from its deviation from a global average. So ports are either within the average or have a notable deviation (difference) from the average.
An important issue is that the CPPI may depict the efficiency level of container ports, but not the causes of this inefficiency. These causes are numerous and could be internal to the port, such as labor or infrastructure issues, or external, such as geopolitical events. An overview of the geography of the ports’ CPPI (see above map) reveals some patterns:
- East Asian ports are among the best performing, underlining strategic decisions made in port infrastructure and performance to support export-oriented strategies.
- Ports having a strong export orientation tend to have a higher CPPI. A key factor is that containers are brought to the port and into export piles in the container yard. This allows for a more optimized loading sequence as the majority of containers are ready to be loaded.
- Ports having a strong import orientation tend to have lower CPPI, particularly in Australia and North America. Since containers are bound to multiple inland destinations with more complex yard operations, this is associated with longer ship turnaround times. Repositioning large amounts of empty containers is also associated with lower CPPI.
- Large transshipment hubs tend to have a higher CPPI since their status is dependent on quick ship turnaround times.
The main expectations of using the CPPI as a port performance metric include:
- Performance gaps. The CPPI can provide evidence in areas where a port may be underperforming in relation to ports with a high CCPI, which becomes the focus of best practices.
- Investment decisions. By providing a comparable port performance metric, the CPPI can be used as a tool for capital allocation in port infrastructure. The expectation is a higher rate of return on investment.
- Policy making. Through the provided port performance metric, the CPPI can guide policy developments and regulations aimed at improving the metric.
- Digitalization. Either through its accuracy in calculating port performance or its potential to capture the situation inaccurately, the CPPI incites port digitalization as a tool for performance improvement and accuracy.
Still, the CPPI raises some caution and controversy as it does not reveal the full spectrum of port efficiency and how ports are used within global supply chains.