Write your message
                  Back to the articles list | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Prioritizing Cargo-Handling Quality Levers for B2B Customer Continuance Intention in Container Ports: An Importance-Performance and Relative-Importance Approach
Mohammad Soltani Shirazi1 , Mohammad Asadian Ghahfarokhi *2 , Seyed Reza Samaei2
1- Master of Science (M.Sc.), Department of Maritime Business Management, SR.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant professor, Department of Marine Industries, SR.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (12 Views)
Although research on port service quality has consistently shown that operational quality influences customer-related outcomes, it provides comparatively limited guidance on which cargo-handling dimensions should be preserved, accelerated or improved first. This study develops a priority-based assessment of cargo-handling operational quality by examining how operational speed, accuracy and error reduction, operational safety, and equipment availability and readiness should be ranked in relation to the continuance intention of organizational customers in a container-port setting. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among representatives of organizational customers directly involved in container loading and unloading activities at Imam Khomeini Port, yielding 110 valid responses. The analytical framework combined dimension-level multiple regression, Pratt-based relative-importance decomposition, importance–performance analysis and an action-priority score that integrated each dimension’s contribution to explained variance with its remaining performance gap. The findings showed that the four cargo-handling dimensions jointly explained 59.5% of the variance in B2B customer continuance intention. Operational speed recorded the largest standardized regression coefficient (β = 0.32) and the highest relative-importance share (35.4%), followed by equipment availability and readiness (β = 0.29; relative-importance share = 29.2%). When relative importance was considered alongside the remaining performance gaps, operational speed retained the highest action priority, followed by equipment readiness, operational safety, and accuracy and error reduction. Notably, although accuracy and error reduction received the lowest perceived performance score, its comparatively weaker contribution to continuance intention prevented it from emerging as the most urgent improvement priority. By moving beyond the question of whether cargo-handling quality affects customer continuance intention, this study demonstrates how individual operational dimensions can be translated into a defensible and practically meaningful sequence of managerial priorities. The proposed framework distinguishes statistical importance, perceived performance and improvement urgency, thereby providing port managers with a transparent basis for allocating limited operational resources while extending port service-quality research toward a more actionable and outcome-oriented approach to prioritization.
Keywords: Container ports, Cargo-handling operational quality, B2B customer continuance intention, Importance–performance analysis, Relative-importance analysis, Equipment readiness, operational reliability, Maritime logistics.
Full-Text [PDF 577 kb]   (3 Downloads)    

Highlights: 
  • Cargo-handling quality dimensions jointly explained 59.5% of B2B customer continuance intention.
  • Operational speed was the strongest dimension, with the highest relative-importance share (35.4%).
  • Equipment readiness ranked second in relative importance (29.2%) and overall action priority.
  • The final improvement ranking was speed → equipment readiness → operational safety → accuracy/error reduction.
  • The framework showed that the lowest-performing dimension is not necessarily the highest managerial priority.

 
Type of Study: Research Paper | Subject: Maritime Transport and Port Management
Received: 2026/05/18 | Accepted: 2026/09/5
Audio file of the article abstract [MP3 4784 KB]  (0 Download)
References
1. Yeo, G.-T., Thai, V.V. and Roh, S.-Y. (2015) 'An analysis of port service quality and customer satisfaction: The case of Korean container ports', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31(4), pp. 437-447. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.002. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.002]
2. Thai, V.V. (2016) 'The impact of port service quality on customer satisfaction: The case of Singapore', Maritime Economics & Logistics, 18(4), pp. 458-475. doi: 10.1057/mel.2015.19. [DOI:10.1057/mel.2015.19]
3. Le, D.N., Nguyen, H.T. and Truong, P.H. (2020) 'Port logistics service quality and customer satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Vietnam', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(2), pp. 89-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.10.003. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.10.003]
4. Sakyi, D. (2020) 'A comparative analysis of service quality among ECOWAS seaports', Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6, article 100152. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100152. [DOI:10.1016/j.trip.2020.100152]
5. Sakyi, D., Appiah, C.K., Ayesu, E.K., Immurana, M. and Baidoo, S.T. (2020) 'A terminal level analysis of service quality at Nigerian seaports', Journal of Shipping and Trade, 5, article 17. doi: 10.1186/s41072-020-00069-9. [DOI:10.1186/s41072-020-00069-9]
6. Phan, T.M., Thai, V.V. and Vu, T.P. (2021) 'Port service quality (PSQ) and customer satisfaction: An exploratory study of container ports in Vietnam', Maritime Business Review, 6(1), pp. 72-94. doi: 10.1108/MABR-01-2020-0003. [DOI:10.1108/MABR-01-2020-0003]
7. Mwendapole, M.J. and Jin, Z. (2021) 'Evaluation of seaport service quality in Tanzania: From the Dar es Salaam Seaport perspective', Sustainability, 13(18), article 10076. doi: 10.3390/su131810076. [DOI:10.3390/su131810076]
8. Abdul Rahman, N.S.F., Balasa, A.P., Othman, M.K. and Alemu, A.E. (2024) 'Port service quality assessment using a ROPMIS modeling: Seaports scenario in a Gulf country', Maritime Business Review, 9(1), pp. 17-34. doi: 10.1108/MABR-03-2023-0027. [DOI:10.1108/MABR-03-2023-0027]
9. Alsalfiti, A. and Notteboom, T. (2025) 'The impact of port service quality on customer satisfaction: The case of clearing and forwarding agents in Kuwait Shuwaikh Port', Maritime Business Review, 10(1), pp. 76-103. doi: 10.1108/MABR-04-2024-0030. [DOI:10.1108/MABR-04-2024-0030]
10. Chang, C.-H. and Thai, V.V. (2016) 'Do port security quality and service quality influence customer satisfaction and loyalty?', Maritime Policy & Management, 43(6), pp. 720-736. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2016.1151086. [DOI:10.1080/03088839.2016.1151086]
11. Roh, S., Haddoud, M.Y., Onjewu, A.-K.E., Jang, H. and Thai, V.V. (2025) 'Revisiting the impact of container port service quality on customer satisfaction: A configuration approach', Transport Policy, 162, pp. 221-231. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.12.008. [DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.12.008]
12. Zhou, L. and Suh, W. (2025) 'A study on port service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and referral intention: Focusing on Korean container terminals amid smart port development', Systems, 13(6), article 486. doi: 10.3390/systems13060486. [DOI:10.3390/systems13060486]
13. Hirata, E. (2019) 'Service characteristics and customer satisfaction in the container liner shipping industry', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 35(1), pp. 24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.03.004. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.03.004]
14. Chao, S.-L., Yu, M.-M. and Wei, S.-Y. (2024) 'Ascertaining the impact of e-service quality on e-loyalty for the e-commerce platform of liner shipping companies', Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 184, article 103491. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2024.103491. [DOI:10.1016/j.tre.2024.103491]
15. Utama, D.R., Hamsal, M., Rahim, R.K. and Furinto, A. (2024) 'The effect of digital adoption and service quality on business sustainability through strategic alliances at port terminals in Indonesia', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 40(1), pp. 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2023.12.001. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2023.12.001]
16. Molavi, A., Lim, G.J. and Race, B. (2020) 'A framework for building a smart port and smart port index', International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14(9), pp. 686-700. doi: 10.1080/15568318.2019.1610919. [DOI:10.1080/15568318.2019.1610919]
17. Pham, T.Y. (2023) 'A smart port development: Systematic literature and bibliometric analysis', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 39(3), pp. 57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2023.06.005. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2023.06.005]
18. Paraskevas, A., Madas, M., Zeimpekis, V. and Fouskas, K. (2024) 'Smart ports in Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review', Logistics, 8(1), article 28. doi: 10.3390/logistics8010028. [DOI:10.3390/logistics8010028]
19. Vrakas, G., Chan, C. and Thai, V.V. (2021) 'The effects of evolving port technology and process optimisation on operational performance: The case study of an Australian container terminal operator', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 37(4), pp. 281-290. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.04.001. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.04.001]
20. Yen, B.T.H., Huang, M.-J., Lai, H.-J., Cho, H.-H. and Huang, Y.-L. (2023) 'How smart port design influences port efficiency-A DEA-Tobit approach', Research in Transportation Business & Management, 46, article 100862. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100862. [DOI:10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100862]
21. Hsu, C.-T., Chou, M.-T. and Ding, J.-F. (2023) 'Key factors for the success of smart ports during the post-pandemic era', Ocean & Coastal Management, 233, article 106455. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106455. [DOI:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106455]
22. Sahraoui, A., Tran, N.K., Tliche, Y., Kacem, A. and Taghipour, A. (2023) 'Examining ICT innovation for sustainable terminal operations in developing countries: A case study of the Port of Radès in Tunisia', Sustainability, 15(11), article 9123. doi: 10.3390/su15119123. [DOI:10.3390/su15119123]
23. Wu, S. and Yang, Z. (2024) 'Impact of port integration on port service quality in the context of shipping alliance', Transport Economics and Management, 2, pp. 331-347. doi: 10.1016/j.team.2024.09.009. [DOI:10.1016/j.team.2024.09.009]
24. Munim, Z.H. (2020) 'Does higher technical efficiency induce a higher service level? A paradox association in the context of port operations', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(4), pp. 157-168. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.02.001. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.02.001]
25. Nikolaou, P. and Dimitriou, L. (2021) 'Lessons to be learned from top-50 global container port terminals efficiencies: A multi-period DEA-Tobit approach', Maritime Transport Research, 2, article 100032. doi: 10.1016/j.martra.2021.100032. [DOI:10.1016/j.martra.2021.100032]
26. Nanyam, V.P.S.N. and Jha, K.N. (2022) 'Operational performance model for Indian container terminals using qualitative comparative analysis', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 38(4), pp. 197-206. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2022.08.001. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2022.08.001]
27. Zhou, L. and Suh, W. (2024) 'A comprehensive study on static and dynamic operational efficiency in major Korean container terminals amid the smart port development context', Sustainability, 16(13), article 5288. doi: 10.3390/su16135288. [DOI:10.3390/su16135288]
28. Mathias, T.N., Inutsuka, H., Shinoda, T. and Sugimura, Y. (2024) 'Operational performance evaluation of a container terminal using data mining and simulation', Asian Transport Studies, 10, article 100127. doi: 10.1016/j.eastsj.2024.100127. [DOI:10.1016/j.eastsj.2024.100127]
29. Danladi, C., Tuck, S., Tziogkidis, P., Tang, L. and Okorie, C. (2024) 'Efficiency analysis and benchmarking of container ports operating in lower-middle-income countries: A DEA approach', Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9, article 7. doi: 10.1186/s41072-024-00163-2. [DOI:10.1186/s41072-024-00163-2]
30. Kazmi, S.M., Rocha, E.M. and Brochado, Â.F. (2025) 'Evaluation of seaport equipment performance using multi-directional efficiency analysis for sustainable logistics operations: A case from Portugal', Research in Transportation Business & Management, 62, article 101442. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101442. [DOI:10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101442]
31. Rosca, E., Rusca, F., Carlan, V., Stefanov, O., Dinu, O. and Rusca, A. (2025) 'Assessing the influence of equipment reliability over the activity inside maritime container terminals through discrete-event simulation', Systems, 13(3), article 213. doi: 10.3390/systems13030213. [DOI:10.3390/systems13030213]
32. Pak, J.Y., Thai, V.V. and Yeo, G.-T. (2015) 'Fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating intangible resources affecting port service quality', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31(4), pp. 459-468. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.004. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.004]
33. Hsu, W.-K.K., Yu, H.-F. and Huang, S.-H.S. (2015) 'Evaluating the service requirements of dedicated container terminals: A revised IPA model with fuzzy AHP', Maritime Policy & Management, 42(8), pp. 789-805. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2015.1043750. [DOI:10.1080/03088839.2015.1043750]
34. Sayareh, J., Iranshahi, S. and Golfakhrabadi, N. (2016) 'Service quality evaluation and ranking of container terminal operators', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32(4), pp. 203-212. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.12.003. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.12.003]
35. Hemalatha, S., Dumpala, L. and Balakrishna, B. (2018) 'Service quality evaluation and ranking of container terminal operators through hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methods', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(2), pp. 137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.010. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.010]
36. Nguyen, T.Q., Ngo, L.T.T., Huynh, N.T., Quoc, T.L. and Hoang, L.V. (2022) 'Assessing port service quality: An application of the extension fuzzy AHP and importance-performance analysis', PLOS ONE, 17(2), article e0264590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264590. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0264590] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Min, H. and Park, B.-I. (2023) 'Examining port selection factors in Sub-Saharan Africa using the modified importance-performance analysis', Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(4), pp. 755-777. doi: 10.1057/s41278-023-00270-0. [DOI:10.1057/s41278-023-00270-0]
38. Pham, T.Y., Truong, N.C., Nguyen, P.H. and Kim, H.-S. (2024) 'The fuzzy MCDM for container terminal choice in Vietnam from shipping lines' perspective based on cumulative prospect theory', The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 40(3), pp. 147-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2024.06.003. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajsl.2024.06.003]
39. Pham, T.Y. and Yeo, G.-T. (2019) 'Evaluation of transshipment container terminals' service quality in Vietnam: From the shipping companies' perspective', Sustainability, 11(5), article 1503. doi: 10.3390/su11051503. [DOI:10.3390/su11051503]
40. Kaliszewski, A., Kozłowski, A., Dąbrowski, J. and Klimek, H. (2020) 'Key factors of container port competitiveness: A global shipping lines perspective', Marine Policy, 117, article 103896. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103896. [DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103896]
41. Munim, Z.H., Hasan, K.R., Schramm, H.-J. and Tusher, H.M. (2022) 'A port attractiveness assessment framework: Chittagong Port's attractiveness from the users' perspective', Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(1), pp. 463-471. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.007. [DOI:10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.007]
42. Tijan, E., Jović, M., Žgaljić, D. and Aksentijević, S. (2022) 'Factors affecting container seaport competitiveness: Case study on Port of Rijeka', Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(10), article 1346. doi: 10.3390/jmse10101346. [DOI:10.3390/jmse10101346]
43. Nguyen, S., Chen, P.S.-L., Du, Y. and Thai, V.V. (2021) 'An operational risk analysis model for container shipping systems considering uncertainty quantification', Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 209, article 107362. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107362. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2020.107362]
44. Tseng, P.-H. and Pilcher, N. (2023) 'A safety assessment model for handling dangerous goods in port operations: The key role of detection capability', Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(9), article 1704. doi: 10.3390/jmse11091704. [DOI:10.3390/jmse11091704]
45. Wang, S., Yin, J. and Khan, R.U. (2023) 'Dynamic safety assessment and enhancement of port operational infrastructure systems during the COVID-19 era', Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(5), article 1008. doi: 10.3390/jmse11051008. [DOI:10.3390/jmse11051008]
46. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996) 'The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality', Journal of Marketing, 60(2), pp. 31-46. doi: 10.1177/002224299606000203. [DOI:10.1177/002224299606000203]
47. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) 'Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model', MIS Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 351-370. doi: 10.2307/3250921. [DOI:10.2307/3250921]
48. Lawshe, C.H. (1975) 'A quantitative approach to content validity', Personnel Psychology, 28(4), pp. 563-575. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570. 1975.tb01393. x. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
49. Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2006) 'The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations', Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), pp. 489-497. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147. [DOI:10.1002/nur.20147] [PMID]
50. Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
51. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) 'Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error', Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp. 39-50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [DOI:10.1177/002224378101800104] [PMCID]
52. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015) 'A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, pp. 115-135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. [DOI:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8] [PMCID]
53. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2014) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
54. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2019) Using Multivariate Statistics, 7th edn. Pearson.
55. Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) 'Importance-Performance Analysis', Journal of Marketing, 41(1), pp. 77-79. doi: 10.1177/002224297704100112. [DOI:10.1177/002224297704100112]
56. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984) 'Attractive quality and must-be quality', Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), pp. 147-156. doi: 10.20684/quality.14.2_147.
57. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B. and Pichler, J. (2004) 'The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis', Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), pp. 271-277. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5. [DOI:10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
International Journal of Maritime Technology is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.