1. No category

Solid business cases for optimization tools
Simple – Smart – Swift
© TBA 2015 / Dr. Yvo Saanen / San Francisco
CONNECT.
COLLABORATE.
INNOVATE.
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
Overview
1. Superb planning practices (find and release them)
2. Get the most out of TOS (as-is)
3. Yard Crane Scheduling (unexplored territory)
4. Intelligent app platform (what we always wanted)
2
1. Superb Planning practices
Quiz
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
 What is the potential impact of superb vessel & yard planning on
berth productivity?
A. Insignificant (<1%)
B. Small (<5%)
C. Substantial (5 – 15%)
D. Large (>15%)
3
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
RTG / TT operation - Distributed imports








4
Better work distribution over RTG’s
Higher performance during discharge
Less concentration during import delivery
Lower truck turn time
No housekeeping required
More reliance on the TOS – less planning
Only possible during dense operations
More equipment required for import delivery
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
RTG/TT operation – Distributed Exports


5
Real-time concentration of VVD combinations
Stack (pile) based grounding
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
RTG / TT operation – Twin-carry
6
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
Straddle carrier operation – 1 over 2 / 1 over 3
Pile based grounding for export
For each pile:
• 1 Size
• 1 Vessel-voyage
• 1 Destination
• 1 Weight class






7
Better work distribution over SC’s
Allows for highest yard density (>90%)
Higher performance discharge & loading
Less concentration during import delivery
Lower truck turn time
No housekeeping required
Dispersed grounding for import
For each pile:
• 1 Size
• 1 Mode
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
1. Superb Planning practices
Potential result
Improvement PTO Deployments
Average QC GMPH
Improvement
30.0 bx/h
150%
135%
124%
25.0 bx/h
Productivity
100%
20.0 bx/h
100%
15.0 bx/h
75%
10.0 bx/h
50%
5.0 bx/h
25%
0.0 bx/h
19.4 bx/h
24.1 bx/h
0%
First Plan
Second Plan
More than 125 planners improved on average by 35%.
Just by better planning
8
26.2 bx/h
Third Plan
Improvement compared to first plan
125%
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
Plan Verification Tool
Plan verification reduces the amount of ‘simple’ errors to virtually ZERO
9
2. Get the most out of TOS (as-is)
Test  Tune  Train









Dual cycling
Double cycling
Twin-carry  twin-lift
Dynamic yard strategies
Equipment pooling
Automated container decking
Automated vessel planning
Distributed workflow
……….
Double & dual cycling
Prime mover pooling
Twin-carry & twin-lift
Many terminals have licensed
modules they do not use
10
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
1. Get the most out of your TOS
Quiz
QC productivity while active (bx/hr) / time (minutes)
 What kind of productivity improvement you
think is feasible with implementing best TOS
practices?
Zeebrugge - SENSITIVITY
varying STRNJP (nearby job priority)
QC productivity (bx/hr)
Truck turn around time
45
40
40.5
40.4
40.2
40.1
39.6
38.8
38.7
37.7
35
30
30.7
30.3
27.8
25
23.6
20
18.3
16.8
15
14.1
13.3
10
5
0
0
1
3
10
25
50
100
200
STRNJP (nearby job priority) - penalty per second driving
TSI Primeroute tuning: with or without dual cycling
Avg Net QC productivity
10
9
DG - waiting to receive
8
7
Time (minutes)
A. Insignificant (<1%)
B. Small (<1-5%)
C. Substantial (5 – 15%)
D. Large (>15%)
DG - waiting to deliver
6
5.3
5
4
3.6
3
LD - waiting to receive
2.7
2.3
2.1
2.0
2
1.3
1.2
LD - waiting to deliver
1
0
TSI 1 / dual cycling
TSI 1 / no dualcycling
Scenario / setting
TSI Primeroute tuning: dedicated versus pooling
Relative QC productivity and Performance-cost-ratio
compared to dedicated dispatching with 8 TTs per QC
120%
150%
110%
102%
Relative QC Productivity
100%
140%
104%
93%
97%
90%
105%
QC productivity dedicated
100%
92%
80%
60%
130%
Reference point: dedicated
with 8 TTs per QC
124%
70%
120%
117%
QC productivity waterside pooling new settings
50%
40%
110%
105%
30%
PCR neutral
20%
100%
10%
0%
90%
5
6
7
8
9
(average) number of TTs working for quay cranes
11
10
Estimated PCR new
settings versus
dedicated 8 TTs
2. Get the most out of TOS (as-is)
Test  Tune  Train
EMULATION: performance improvement & risk reduction around TOS implementation
12
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
3. Yard Crane Scheduler
Quiz
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
 What is the potential saving when 15% less RTG’s can be deployed
(average) in a 1 M TEU operation @20 USD labour cost per hour?
A. Insignificant (<100k USD)
B. Small (<500k USD)
C. Substantial (500K – 2M USD)
D. Large (>2M USD)
13
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
3. Yard Crane Scheduler
Potential savings
Operational cost per year
@1.0 M TEU/a
QC
$30.0M
$25.0M
RTG
TT
6%
-$1,7M
$5.8M
$5.8M
$20.0M
$13.2M
$11.4M
$15.0M
$10.0M
$5.0M
$7.7M
$7.7M
Before
After
$0.0M
14
3. Yard Crane Scheduler
Getting more out of your yard
YCS: 15% less RTG’s required
15
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
4. Intelligent App Platform
The functionality we always wanted
16
Timely reefer operation
Chimney stacks
Intelligent Housekeeping
Pooling automated
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
The improvement matrix: App ideas
17
INSERT PARTNER LOGO
Contact Details
TBA b.v.
Company registration number NL27197330
Karrepad 2A
2623 AP Delft
The Netherlands
Internet www.tba.nl
18
Company board:
Ir. Martijn Coeveld – CEO / Managing Director
Dr. ir. Yvo Saanen – COO / Managing Director
Office +31 (0) 15 3805775
Fax
+31 (0) 15 3805763
info@tba.nl