Qual Quant (2009) 43:87107

DOI 10.1007/s11135-007-9087-1
O R I G I NA L PA P E R

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

using quantitative SWOT analytical method
Kuo-Liang Lee Wen-Chih Huang Junn-Yuan Teng

Received: 15 April 2006 / Accepted: 15 August 2006 / Published online: 29 March 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Evaluating the competitive position of location develops global logistics

hub (GLH) is a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and it is
important for governor to implement suitable strategies appropriate its environment.
SWOT analysis is very important in the process of strategic formulation. Under many
conditions, the evaluative criteria (indicators) are mixed with quantitative/qualitative
values and the values for qualitative criteria are often imprecisely defined for decisionmakers. A quantified SWOT analytical method, that integrates the method of fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, was proposed to provide more detailed
and quantified data for SWOT environmental analysis to assess the competitive relation for locations develop different types GLH in PacificAsian region. Integrating
the concept of Grand Strategy Matrix (GSM), a suitable competing strategy could be
suggested for location developing GLH in accordance with its competitive position.
Keywords Global logistics hub Competitive position Quantitative/qualitative
criteria Quantitative SWOT Fuzzy AHP Competing strategy

K-L. Lee (B)

Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, Overseas Chinese Institute of
Technology, No.100, Chaio Kwang Rd., Taichung, 407, Taiwan, R.O.C.
e-mail: lee.kl@msa.hinet.net
W-C. Huang
Laboratory of Port and Logistics of National Taiwan Ocean University, P.O. BOX 7-107, Keelung,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
e-mail: huangwc@mail.ntou.edu.tw
J-Y. Teng
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Information, Huafan University,
No.1, Huafan Rd., Shihding Township, Taipei county, 22301, Taiwan, R.O.C.
e-mail: jyteng@huafan.hfu.edu.tw

88

K-L. Lee et al.

1 Introduction
The way of modern commodities distribution changes from anticipatory logistics
to response-based logistics; namely, which focuses on predicting the final product
demand now turns to emphasis quickly response the customer demand. The decision
of logistics service providers (LSPs) and international firms, on concentrating logistics
function in a particular global logistics hub (GLH) is critical importance. Hence,
the role of GLH location as home-based for providing these logistics function has
become increasingly important. In order for a location in developing a successful GLH,
the governor is required to design and implement proper strategies for attracting
international firms (Tao and Park 2004; Sheu 2004).
SWOT analytical method is very important in the process of strategy formulation
(David 1998; Chang and Huang 2006). Analysis on internal strengths and weaknesses
is mainly to evaluate how an enterprise carries out its internal work, such as management, work efficiency, research, and development, etc. SWOT analysis is able to
help the enterprises evaluate their position in the competition and can be used as
foundation for the development of policies. Analysis of external opportunities and
threats is mainly to evaluate whether an enterprise can seize the opportunities and
avoid the threats when facing an uncontrollable external environment. With the help
of SWOT analysis, the location can get to know its position when it is faced with the
competitive environment so that it can function as the basis to propose the strategies.
The quantitative analysis on the environment mainly aims at analyzing data statistically, hence, it is much more objective for the analytical results when using the method,
and it is different from the subjective estimation in words of the quality mode, such
traditional SWOT analysis method. David (1998, 2001) summarized various SWOT
quantitative analysis methods, including External Factor Evaluation Matrix (EFE),
Internal Factor Evaluation matrix (IFE). Kurttila et al. (2000) and Stewart et al. (2002)
combined the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with SWOT to provide a new hybrid
method for improving the usability of SWOT analysis. Although a consistency test is
used to ensure the weight that was scored objectively by the evaluative group, to carry
out SWOT analysis comparison on several enterprises simultaneously is difficult.
A suitable location decision for MNCs selecting a GLH in accordance with two
or more criteria is a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem. However,
the criteria of GLH competition differ according to the criteria for judging subjects,
circumstances, the degree of knowledge, etc. Also, their degree of strength is to
be changed as per the different ways of thinking in depth. Moreover, the criteria
are mixed with quantitative and qualitative values, and have reciprocal organic and
complex relationships each other. These many criteria have the problems of complex
and organic relationships. Under many conditions, the values for qualitative criteria
are often imprecisely defined for decision-makers. Besides, the desired values and
importance weighting of criteria are usually described in linguistic terms, e.g., low,
medium, high, very high, etc. It is not easy to precisely quantify the rating
of each alternative location selection problem and the precision-based methods as
stated above are not adequate to deal with the GLH location selection problem.
Fuzzy set theory was developed exactly based on the premise that the key indicators
in human thinking are not numbers, but linguistic terms or labels of fuzzy sets (Bellman
and Zadel 1970; Zadel 1965). Hence, a fuzzy decision-making method under multiple
criteria considerations is needed to integrate various linguistic assessment and weights
to evaluate the location suitability and determine the best selection (Chen et al. 1992).

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

89

In this paper, a quantified SWOT analytical method, that integrates the concept
of MCDM and fuzzy AHP method, was proposed to improve the above methods. By
the analytical method, we evaluate locations developing GLH in Pacific Asia region
can not only realize their position in the competition be shown on the 4-quadrant
coordinate but also have a reference for developing strategies.

2 Methodology
2.1 Fuzzy AHP method
2.1.1 AHP method
The AHP was initially presented by Saaty (1980) for solving multiple criteria decision problems. Using a systematic hierarchy structure, complex estimation criteria
can be represented clearly and definitely. Ratio scales are utilized to make reciprocal comparisons for each element and each layer. After completing the reciprocal
matrix, one can obtain comparative weights for each element. Considering the criteria C1 , . . . , Ci , . . . , Cj , . . . , Cn , some one level in hierarchy. One wishes to find their
weights of importance, w1 , . . . , wi , . . . , wj , . . . , wn , on some elements in the next level.
Obtaining an exact priority vector w = (w1 , . . . , w2 , . . . , wj , . . . , wn ) is complex, so
this paper uses the Normalization of Row Average(NRA) (Saaty and Vargas 1982)
method to replace the more complex operation. This method sums up each row element and standardizes it by summing all elements of the matrix. That is, allowing
aij , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, to be the importance strength of Ci when compared with Cj , then
n

wi =

aij

j=1
n

n

i = 1, 2, . . . , n.

(1)

aij

i=1 j=1

Consistency testing is an important issue for using Eq. 1 to find the priority vector
and it contains two layers. One is to check whether the pairwise comparative matrix
which answers by decision makers is a consistency matrix or not. The other is to
check the consistency of hierarchy structure. The ratio to estimate the consistency
is Consistent Ratio (CR). The CR tells us how consistent we are with our answers.
A higher number means we are less consistent, while a lower number means that we
are more consistent. In general, if the CR is less than or equal to 0.1, the consistency
will be guaranteed.
The ratio is equal to the consistency index (CI) divided by the random index (RI).
CI
.
RI

(2)

n
,
n1

(3)

CR =
The formula for C.I. is:
C.I. =

where n is the number of items being compared. The value for is simple the average
value of the consistency vector. The random index is a direct function of the number
of alternatives.

90

K-L. Lee et al.

Due to the pairwise comparisons utilized in AHP facilitate the conveyance of

responsors preference, and the measure of consistency enables us to return to the
judgments modifying them here and there to improve the overall consistency. The
AHP method will be utilized to find the criteria weight.
2.1.2 Fuzzy set theory
In a universe of discourse of X, a fuzzy subset A of X is characterized by a membership
function fA , which maps each element x in X to a real number in the interval [0, 1].
The function value represents the grade of membership ofx in A. A fuzzy number A
(Dubois and Prade 1978; Dornier et al. 1998; Laarhoven 1983)
 in

(real line) is a
triangular fuzzy number if its membership function fA :
0, 1 is
xc

ac , c x a,

(4)
fA (x) = dx
da , a x d,

0,
otherwise.
With < c a d < , the triangular fuzzy number A can be represented
by (c, a, d). Here, the triangular fuzzy numbers are used to denote the approximate
reasoning of linguistic values (Zadeh 1975, 1976). They are used to covey the subjective
evaluation of decision-makers. The reason of using triangular fuzzy number is that it
is easy to use. For example, performance is a linguistic variable, its values are very
low, low, medium, high, very high, etc. Linguistic value can also be represented by
the approximate represented by the approximate reasoning of fuzzy set theory. For
example, the linguistic value Good can be denoted by (0.5, 0.7,1). An exact number
a can be represented by (a, a, a). In this paper the linguistic values are utilized
to assess the linguistic ratings given by decision-makers, as well as the linguistic
weights assigned to various selection criteria. By the extension principle (Zadeh
1965) the extended algebraic operations of any two triangular fuzzy numbers A1 =
(c1 , a1 , d1 ), A2 = (c2 , a2 , d2 ) can be expressed as:
A1 A2 = (c1 + c2 , a1 + a2 , d1 + d2 ),

K A1 = (kc1 , ka1 , kd1 ), k R, k 0.

2.1.3 Ranking of triangular fuzzy numbers

Many fuzzy ranking methods have been proposed (Bortolan and Degani 1985; Luis
and Antonio 1989; Kim and Park 1990). Because of the graded mean integration
representation method (Chen and Hsieh 2000) not only improve some drawbacks
of the existing method, but also possess the advantage of easy implementation, and
powerfulness in problem solving, it will be used to rank the final superiority ratings
of all alternatives.
Let Ai = (ci , ai , di ), i = 1, 2, , n, be n triangular fuzzy numbers. The graded
mean integration representation R(Ai ) of Ai is
R(Ai ) =

ci + 4ai + di
.
6

(5)

Let R(Ai ) and R(Aj ) be, respectively, the graded mean integration representations of
triangular fuzzy numbers Ai and Aj . Defined that

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

91

Ai > Aj R(Ai ) > R(Aj ),

Ai = Aj R(Ai ) = R(Aj ),
Ai < Aj R(Ai ) < R(Aj ).
2.1.4 Measure for linguistic value
The concept of linguistic value (Zadeh 1975) is useful in describing situations that are
complex or poorly defined by quantitative expressions. Linguistic value could be represented by the approximate reasoning of fuzzy set theory. Define the linguistic values
set S = {VG, G, MB, VB}, where VG = Very Good, G = Good, M = Medium, B = Bad,
VB = Very Bad. Here, the linguistic values in sets S are used by the decision-makers,
MNCs, to evaluate the performance of locations versus various criteria above the location types. The membership function of each linguistic value is defined as: VG = (0.7, 1,
1), G = (0.5, 0.7, 1), M = (0.2, 0.5, 0.8), B = (0, 0.3, 0.5), and VB = (0, 0, 0.3).
2.2 Quantified SWOT analytical method
A procedure (as shown in Fig. 1) of quantitative SWOT method, that integrate the
MCDM concept and fuzzy AHP method, was proposed to assess the competitive
position of location developing a GLH:
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3
Step 4
Step 5

Step 6

The selection of candidate location with competitive relevance. For analysis of location competition, firstly, it should be considered the problem of
selecting the candidate locations with competitive relationship.
Distinguish between internal and external environment indicators of various
types GLH mainly based on whether these indicators can be self-controlled.
Those internal conditions and resources, which can be completely controlled, are called internal environment, whereas those cannot be completely
controlled or dominated and have to cooperate or consult with other locations organizations were called external environment.
Build a hierarchical structure of transshipment and re-export types GLH.
Collect data, reading to collect the objective and quantified performance of
the locations compared.
The questionnaire investigation which includes two parts: one to investigate
the weights of evaluative indicators using the AHP method; and the other
to investigate the linguistic quality performance of the compared objects
using fuzzy AHP method.
Calculating the performance values of various indicators of internal and external conditions. When the performance values of quantity of all evaluation
indicators are accounted, normalization should be carried out so that the performance values of different indicators can be transformed into the dimensionless units in order that the indicators can be compared with each other.
Effective indicators:
Pij
 , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Eij =
(6)
Maxj Pij
Cost indicators:


Minj Pij
,
Eij =
Pij

i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(7)

92

K-L. Lee et al.

Deciding the
competitive locations

Distinguish of internal and

external environment
indicators of various types
GLH
Build a hierarchical structure
of various types GLH
Questionnaire
investigation

Data collection

Objective and quantified

Performance value

Weights of key
indicators using AHP
method

The linguistic quality

Performance value

Normalize the
performance
Calculating the internal and
external weight score and
determining the benchmarks
of each type GLH

Calculating the internal and

external coordinate values of
each type GLH

Judging the competitive

positions of all locations on
the 4-quadrant coordinate
of each type GLH

Fig. 1 Quantified SWOT procedures evaluating competitive position of GLH

0 Eij 1

Eij = 1,

Step 7

Step 8

where Pij and Eij , respectively, represent the non-normalized and normalized performance value of the j location of the ith evaluative indicators.
Calculating the weight score of all locations (as shown in Table 1), which
is calculated by weigh (wi ) fuzziness performance value (Ej (cj , aj , dj )) and
the graded mean integration representation Rj of location Lj .
Based on the internal and external weight scores (Weight Performance
value) of all research locations, the internal and external benchmarks can
be determined geometrically.

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

93

Table 1 The assessment of weighted score among competitive locations

L2

Ln

E11 (c11 , a11 , d11 )

E21 (a21 , a21 , a21 )

E12 (c12 , a12 , d12 )

E22 (a22 , a22 , a22 )

E1n (c1m , a1m , d1m )

E2n (a2m , a2m , a2m )

Em2 (cm2 , am2 , dm2 )

E2 (c2 , a2 , d2 )
R2

Remark: 1. Q: Quality; N: Quantity

m


2. Ej (cj , aj , dj ) =
wi Eij ,

Rj =

i=1

AI =

Em1 (cm1 , am1 , dm1 )

E1 (c1 , a1 , d1 )
R1

---

L1

---

wn
1

Q
N

Locations (Lj ) performance value

---

Cm
Weight
score

w1
w2

Unit

---

---

C1
C2

Weight
(wi )

---

Criteria
(Ci )

Emn (cmn , amn , dmn )

En (cn , an , dn )
Rn

cj +4aj +dj
.
6

I1 + I2 + + In
,
n

j = 1, 2 . . . n,

(8)

E1 + E2 + + En
, j = 1, 2 . . . n,
(9)
n
where AI and AE, respectively, represent the benchmark of the internal and
environment evaluation,Ij and Ej , respectively, represent the weight score
of the j ports internal and external environment.
When the weight scores of the internal and external environments of the
research location subtract the benchmarks of the internal and external environments, the results are coordinate values of the research objects in four
quadrants of SWOT.
AE =

Step 9

ISj = Ij AIj ,
ESj = Ej AEj ,

Step 10

j = 1, 2 . . . n, 1 IS +1,

(10)

j = 1, 2 . . . n,

(11)

1 ES +1,

where ISj represents the coordinate value of the j ports internal environment, and ESj represents the coordinate value of the j ports external environment.
Finally, all candidate locations are illustrated in the SWOT Matrix to judge
the competitive profiles, positions, of all locations.

3 Empirical analysis
With strong economic developments since the early 1980s and a shift in the global
center of manufacturing to Asia, major ports in Far Eastern region have expanded
rapidly. The demand for cargos in Far Eastern region will further increase in the future
(Chou et al. 2003). We note that Hong Kong (China), Singapore, Shanghai (China),
Busan (Southern Korea), Kaohsiung (Taiwan), and Shenzhen (China) are the six major competitive locations in Far Eastern region (Containerization International 2004).
In this paper, these locations are selected as an example to evaluate the competitive
position of location developing a GLH by the quantitative SWOT analytical method.

94

K-L. Lee et al.

Table 2 The function of various types of GLH

Functions

Stage

Providing firms

Transportation
Warehousing
Consolidation
Distribution

Transportation

Carriers
Forwarder
CFS
Custom brokers

Assembly
Labeling

Reprocessing

Manufacturing firms
DC firms

Types
Transshipment

Re-export (export or transshipment +

reprocessing)

Inspecting
Packing

3.1 Types of GLH

Logistics activities provide a number of functions, including transportation, storage,
consolidation, assembly, inspection, labeling, packing, documentation, and R&D services (Lu 2003; Sheu 2004). In accordance with relations among businesses that
participate in the process of the supply of and demand for products and services,
the supply chain participants could be classified into primary and specialized types
(Bowersox and Closs 1996; Sheu 2004). The primary participants, the demanders of
logistics activities, include manufacturing firms, wholesalers, and retailers that provide
manufacturing, assembly, distribution, and retail services for products. The specialized participants, the suppliers of logistics activities, include functional and supporting
participants. The functional participants include carriers, forwarders, container freight
station (CFS) operators, customs brokers, and other logistics integration companies
that provide the transportation, storage, consolidation, assembly, inspection, labeling,
packing, and documentation services and charge fees and tariffs from the primary
participants.
There are location considerations for different specialized participants to establish
their bases, such as regional distribution or reprocessing centers, in specific regions
to provide various logistics services. Hence, in order to develop a regional GLH, the
governors of many locations have made efforts to strengthen their infrastructure and
economic ability to attract MNCs of specialized logistics participants (Tao and Park
2004; Sheu 2004).
Integrating these logistics activities of functional/primary/supporting (transportation/manufacturing) and cargo flows (export and transshipment), the GLH types (as
listed in Table 2) were proposed as the foundation for analyzing the issue of competitive position for location developing a GLH.
3.1.1 Transshipment type GLH
Focusing on Kaoshiung city in southern Taiwan, this city has the largest port in Taiwan, which was ranked sixth among the worlds container ports in 2005 (Kaohsiung
Port Authority 2005). Kaoshiung has an excellent location, with the shortest average distance from other main ports in the PacificAsia region and port conditions, such as warehousing and distribution facilities, to develop the transshipmenttype GLH. In Kaohsiung port, half of the cargo is dedicated to the transshipment

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

95

volume, which measures 4.60 million TEU and comprises 52% of gross handling
volume (Containerization International 2004), and it is one of the most important
hub-ports in the PacificAsia region.

3.1.2 Re-export type GLH

By providing this type of logistics service, local manufacturing industries (such as
science-based industrial parks and industrial parks), distribution centers, and ports can
be integrated into the functional activities. As an illustration, let us consider re-export
type GLH typically used by Taiwan information manufacturing firms: the MNCs order
from the OEM manufacturers in Taiwan (David 2001); the OEM manufacturers in
Taiwan import some of the parts from several international markets, reprocess them
in Taiwan, and finally export them to international consumer markets. The OEM
manufacturers in Taiwan create the value of reprocessing.
3.2 Target sample collection
We developed a structured questionnaire based on the seven stages outlined by
Churchill (1991). The information to be sought was first specified, and then the following were determined: type of questionnaire and its method of administration,
content of individual questions, form of response to and wordings of each question,
sequence of questions, and physical characteristics of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was pretested and revised wherever necessary. The content validity of the
questionnaire was tested through a theoretical review and pilot test, i.e., questions in
the questionnaire were based on previous studies and discussion with a number of
logistics executives and experts.
The sample firms operate in a variety of industries including international manufacturing firms (such as apparel, computer, electronics, machinery, office supplies, and
pharmaceuticals industries), numbers of International Logistics Association, shipping
companies, and freight forwarders industries. Due to the limitations in finance and
time, the eight-page questionnaire survey was sent to the managers of international
manufacturers (200) from the List of Leading Firms in 2004 with Good Export and
Import Performance published by the Board of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of
Economic Affairs in Taiwan, shipping companies (9), freight forwarders (26), and the
membership of Taiwan International Association (40).
The revised questionnaire was sent to a manager in each of our target sample
firms by post-mail, email or interview. In order to encourage potential respondents
participation, we offered some incentives such as to provide a respondent with the
results of our research upon completion and gifts to respondents once receiving
his/her answered questionnaire. After deleting parts of questionnaires that are not
reasonable, finally there were 49 questionnaires responding with the valid recovery
rate of 17.8%. The sample consists of 49 MNCs-based in a various industries, as shown
in Table 3.
3.3 Hierarchical structure
The indicators were based on the indicators of Lin et al. (2006) and Lou (2004) that
develop global logistics system of transshipment type (15 indicators), and re-export

96

K-L. Lee et al.

Table 3 Location of sample firms major Asian global logistics hub (GLHs)

International manufacturing firms

Numbers of international logistics association
Shipping companies
Freight forwarders
Total

Type

Environment

Number of firms

Percentage of the sample

21
14
6
8
49

42.8
28.6
12.2
16.4
100%

Indicators

Locations

Political, economic, society

stability (I1)
Ext-TR Convenience (I2)
Information abilities (I3 )
Port rate (terminal rate) (I4)
Internal
factors

One stop service (I5)

Transshipment time (I6)
Port & warehouse facilities (I7)

Transshipment
GLH

Port operation system (I8)

Shanghai (L1)

Port operation legal guarantee (I9)

Busan (L2)

IM/EX volume (I10)

Kaohsiung (L3)
Shenzhen (L4)
HK (L5)

Location resistance (E1 )

External
factors

Singapore (L6)

Density of shipping line (E 2 )

Regional port competition (E 3)
Transshipment volume (E 5)
Regional industrial competition
(E 6 )

Fig. 2 Hierarchical structure of transshipment type GLH

type (18 indicators). We construct the hierarchical structure of the two types GLH (as
shown in Figs. 2, 3) and the description of indicators were represented in appendix A.
3.4 Competitive position
By questionnaires and surveys, the comparative importance value for evaluation
indicators of weights (as shown in Table 4) of transshipment and re-export types GLH
obtained by the AHP method and the performance values (as shown in
Appendixes B and C) for evaluation indicators obtained by the fuzzy AHP method.
Each performance value contains two parts: quantified and qualified performance.
Quantified performance is an actual statistic (e.g., location resistance, density of shipping line), while qualified performance is a fuzziness value using the linguistic rating
variables (very poor, poor, medium poor, fair, medium good, good, very good), which
is marked subjectively by experts ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 (the higher the better). In
order to unify the scale of the quantified indicators (see Table 5), normalization of
indicators is inevitable (see Table 6).

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

Type

Environment

97

Indicators

Locations

Political/economic/society stability
(I 1)
Ext-TR Convenience (I2)
Information abilities (I3)
Reprocessing tax (I11)
Internal
factors

Zero custom tax (I12)

Reprocessing time (I13)
Reprocessing facilities (I14)
Indus. Environ. legal Guarantee (I15)
Products original Certificate (I16)
Reprocessing cost (I17)

Transshipment
GLH

Manpower quality (I18)

Shanghai (L1)

Industrial cluster environment (I19)

Busan (L2)

Re-proc. Ext. transportation (I20)

Kaohsiung (L3)

Financing deregulation (I21)

Shenzhen (L4)

HK (L5)
Singapore (L6)

Location resistance (E1)

External
factors

Density of shipping line (E2)

Regional industrial competition (E6)
Parts cost (E7)

Fig. 3 Hierarchical structure of re-export type GLH

O
HK
Busan
W

Shenzhen

Kaohsiung

Singapore

Shanghai

Fig. 4 The competitive position of transshipment type GLH in PacificAsia region. Remark: S:
Strength; W: Weakness; O: opportune; T: Threaten

The total weight score (as shown in Tables 7, 8) of transshipment and re-export
types GLH can be obtained by multiplying the weights with indicators performance
after defuzziness by the graded mean integration representation. The benchmarks can
be obtained by average value of all locations weight score and the coordinate values
can be obtained by weight score of the location subtract benchmark. Eventually, the
coordinate values of all locations are allocated into one of the four quadrants (see
Figs. 4, 5).
Figures 4 and 5 show clearly the position of a location in the competition and
this can help locations choose their strategy for developing suitable types GLH. The

98

K-L. Lee et al.

Table 4 The indicators weights of two types GLH

Criteria

Internal criteria
Political, economic, society stability
Ext-TR convenience
Information abilities
Port rate
One stop service
Transshipment time
Port and warehouse facilities
Port operation system
Port operation legal guarantee
IM/EX volume
Reprocessing tax
Zero custom tax
Reprocessing time
Reprocessing facilities
Reprocessing deregulation
Indus. environ. legal guarantee
Products original certificate
Reprocessing cost
Re-processing manpower quality
Industrial cluster environment
Re-proc. ext. transportation
Financing deregulation
R&D cost
Summary
External criteria
Location resistance
Density of shipping line
Regional port competition
Port alliance/internationalize
Transshipment volume
Regional industrial competition
Parts cost
Summary

Weight
Transshipment type (1)

Re-export type (2)

0.099
0.068
0.011
0.206
0.056
0.117
0.109
0.089
0.078
0.077

0.076
0.038
0.055

0.091
0.084
0.077
0.057
0.060
0.041
0.081
0.081
0.105
0.041
0.065
0.048
1

0.260
0.232
0.192
0.113

0.127
0.231

0.203

0.389
0.253
1

transshipment type (as shown in Fig. 4) shows that Singapore, Hong Kong, Kaohsiung,
and Busan locate in the SO quadrant, so have external opportunities for development
and internal competing strength, thus are in the best position for facing competition.
Although Kaohsiung and Busan are in the first quadrant, there is a gap between them
and Singapore and Hong Kong. Shanghai and Shenzhen locate in the WT quadrant,
so have internal weakness and suffer from external threaten due to the challenge
from Busan, Kaohsiung, and Hong Kong. Therefore, they must not only enhance
their internal competing strength, but also find the most suitable market to avoid
threat.

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

99

Table 5 The qualified performance of locations developing GLH in the East Asia region
Evaluative indicators

Internal indicators
I10 Containers handling
volume
External indicators
E1 Location resistance
E2 Density of shipping line

Unit

Locations
L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

Thousand
TEU

14,557

11,403

9,715

13,655

21,932

21,310

Miles
Lines

7,288
106

8,784
130

5,401
109

6,421
112

6,356
215

17,199
336

Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore (L6 )
Source: Containerisation International Yearbook 2005
Table 6 Normalize the qualified performance of locations developing GLH in the East Asia region
Evaluative indicators

Internal indicators
I10 Containers handling
volume
External indicators
E1 Location resistance
E2 Density of shipping line

Unit

Locations

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

Thousand
TEU

0.6637

0.5199

0.4439

0.6231

1.0000

0.9716

Miles
Lines

0.7411
0.3155

0.6149
0.3869

1.0000
0.3244

0.8411
0.3333

0.8497
0.6399

0.3140
1.0000

Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore (L6 )
Table 7 The benchmarks and coordinate values of transshipment type GLH
Environment

Coordinate
value

Internal

Weighted
0.5869 0.6394
score (SW)
Coordinate 0.0526 0.0001
value (SW)
Weighted
0.6067 0.6898
score (OT)
Coordinate 0.0411 0.0420
value (OT)

External

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

0.6466

0.5088

0.6994

0.7557

0.0071 0.1307

0.0599

0.1162

0.6652

0.5358

0.7313

0.6580

0.0174 0.1120

0.0835

0.0102

Benchmark
0.6395

0.6478

Remark: Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore
(L6 ) Coordinate value = Weighted average valueBenchmark

On analyzing the locations developing the re-export type GLH from the relationship of competitive position and conditions, we can find that Shenzhen, Busan,
and Kaohsiung locate in the SO quadrant due to the competitiveness on the key
indicators of high-tech industrial environment. As far as the re-export type GLH do
not lay major emphasis on the port condition but on high-tech industrial conditions,
so HK, Busan, and Singapore locate in WT quadrant. Since the Shanghai actively
improve infrastructure (where includes Great Yangshan Island and Little Yangshan
Island) and operation system of port, and industrial environment (such as the developing of science-based technology parks and distribution park), Shanghai could be
expected soon move from the third quadrant toward the leading group (first quadrant)
of the two types GLH in the future.

100

K-L. Lee et al.

Table 8 The benchmarks and coordinate values of re-export mode GLH

Environment

Coordinate
value

Internal

Weighted
0.7082
average
value (SW)
Coordinate 0.0262
value (SW)
Weighted
0.6799
average
value (OT)
Coordinate 0.0088
value (OT)

External

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

0.7523

0.7491

0.7859

0.7223

0.6833

0.0179

0.0147

0.0515 0.0121 0.0511

0.7259

0.6940

0.7079

0.0372

0.0053

0.0192 0.0190 0.0337

0.6697

0.6550

Benchmark
0.7344

0.6887

Remark: Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore
(L6 ) Coordinate value = Weighted average valueBenchmark
O
Busan
Shenzhen

Kaohsiung

Shanghai

HK
Singapore

Fig. 5 The competitive position of re-export mode GLH in Pacific-Asia region. Remark: S: Strength;
W: Weakness; O: opportune; T: Threaten

4 Discussion and implication

Quantified SWOT in this study not only shows the competitive relation of locations
developing GLH, but also but also has a reference for developing strategies on the
basis of the Grand Strategy Matrix (GSM) (Chou et al. 2003). Just as in the GSM,
the enterprises are parked in the four quadrants of the coordinate according to their
categories (as shown in Fig. 6). However, there is a reversal in that the ordinate stands
for the external environment (opportunities, threats) while the abscissa stands for the
internal environment (strengths, weaknesses).
The meaning of the four quadrants is (Chang and Huang 2006): the first quadrant
stands for the enterprises strengths and market opportunities. Enterprises in this
quadrant can use their strengths to adopt strategies, such as market penetration,
market development, and product development to form competitive strength. If the
enterprise in the first quadrant has extra resources, forward, backward, and horizontal
integration may be efficient strategies. Enterprises in the second quadrant are those
with market developing opportunities but on the weak side of competition. The
most urgent issue is to improve their weakness to intensify competitive strength.
If they lack unique competence, they may consider intensifying their competitive

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

101

Rapid market growth

Quadrant II
Market development
Market penetration
Product development
Horizontal integration
Divestiture
Liquidation
Weak
Competitive
Position
Quadrant III
Retrenchment
Concentric diversification
Horizontal diversification
Conglomerate Diversification
Divestiture

Quadrant I
Market development
Market penetration
Product development
Forward integration
Backward integration
Horizontal integration
Concentric diversification

Quadrant IV
Concentric diversification
Horizontal diversification
Conglomerate
Diversification
Joint ventures

Strong
Competitive
Position

Liquidation

Slow market growth

Fig. 6 The grand strategy matrix. Source: Adapted from R. Christensen et al. (1976)

strength through joint venture or horizontal merger strategies. Enterprises in the third
quadrant are of low-competitive strength and facing threats from other competitors.
Defensive strategies, such as focusing on the most favored markets, can be adopted
to avoid threats. Divestiture or liquidation should be adopted if these strategies fail.
Enterprises in the fourth quadrant are those possessing competition strength but
facing greater threats than opportunities. Diversification or joint venture should be
adopted to reduce threats.
In case of Kaohsiung, several strategies is a brief illustration of developing re-export
type GLH (see Table 9) depending on the SO quadrants dimensions of market development, market penetration, product development, forward integration, backward
integration, horizontal integration, concentric diversification.
Locations will be judged on their environmental ability to find ways for developing
the suitable mode GLH depending on the evaluation of competitive position. Location
governor may implement suitable strategies in an effort to improve environmental
conditions of GLH according the competitive position.

5 Conclusion
SWOT analysis is very important in the process of strategy formulation. In this
study, a quantified SWOT procedure, that integrates the MCDM concept and fuzzy
AHP method, was proposed to help decision makers assess the competitive position of location developing a GLH. The method shows similarities to the GSM
concept, so could be combined with the GSM for strategy formulation and location
selection.
We analysis the position of locations developing GLH in Pacific Asia region was
originally quiet complicated. The evaluation indicators in this paper include a quantified and qualified performance value. The weight of the evaluation indicators was
obtained using the AHP method and this is the function of consistency test. As a consequence, inconsistencies are avoided when interviewees answer the questionnaire, and

102

K-L. Lee et al.

Table 9 SO strategies of location developing re-export type GLH

Strategy

Description

Example

Market development

Expanding new market

to increase the export

Market penetration

Finding out new

consumption market
and supplying market
(manufacturing market

Product
development

Developing new production and improving

traditional production

Forward integration

Integrating upstream
market of supply and
manufacture side

Backward
integration

Integrating downstream
market of consumption
side

Horizontal
integration

Integrating the advantageous resources to

jointly design and develop new products

Concentric
diversification

Increasing the common

technology and market
of new production in the
existing porduction

Signing the free trade agreements to expand

the economic hinterland and to exploit new
consumption market and supplying market
(manufacturing market), establishing longterm relations with other nations and organizations (such as signing Asian and Pacific
Regional Trade Agreement (RTA))
In the existing industrial environment, establishing a high-tech strategic union with the
international enterprises so as to expand the
consumption market and the manufacturing
market (signing the Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) for the USA, Taiwan, and the Mainland)
Providing better industry-conglomerating
environment, adding values to human
resources and to deep-level taxation and
its inducements (including sales tax, subsidies for exporting and importing talents and
for talents researches), constructing better
high-tech industrial environment
Signing the union agreement with the manufacturing (production) hinterland to supply the raw materials, semi finished products
and key parts for manufacturing
Signing the free trade agreement with the
hinterland of the manufacturing market
(the supplier) and that of the consumption
market (the consumer)
Integrating the existing high-tech establishment and technology, transferring or supporting the industrial parks at home and
abroad to upgrade (such as integrating hightech industrial resources of Taiwan)
Providing financial service, information center service, and other functional services
(such as the liberalization of the financial
system, Asian and Pacific direct sales (auction) center)

the weights are obtained precisely. The performance value for qualitative indicators
are often imprecisely defined for decision-makers and it is not easy to precisely quantify the rating. Hence, the fuzzy AHP method is used to integrate various linguistic
assessments and weights to evaluate the location suitability and determine the best
selection.
Depending on the coordinate value of the qualified SWOT analysis of the locations
their position in the competition can be clearly realized, this helps location governors
provide a basis for further examination of competitive strategies, so as to strengthen
locations competitive advantage and to avoid threaten. In case of the competitive
position of Kaohsiung, several strategies is a brief illustration of developing re-export
type GLH depending on the SO quadrants strategies of GSM.

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

103

Appendix A. The description of competitive indicators of GLH

Indicators
Internal indicators
Political, economic, society stability
Ext-TR Convenience
Information abilities
Port rate (terminal rate)
One stop service
Transshipment time
Port and warehouse facilities
Port operation system
Port operation legal guarantee
IM/EX volume
Reprocessing tax
Zero custom tax
Reprocessing time
Reprocessing facilities
Reprocessing deregulation
Indus. environ. legal guarantee
Products original certificate
Reprocessing cost
Re-processing manpower quality
Industrial cluster environment
Financing deregulation
R&D cost
External indicators
Location resistance
Density of shipping line
Regional port competition
Port alliance/internationalize
Transshipment volume
Regional industrial competition
Parts cost

Description
The internal environmental stability of location will affect
the investment of MNCs
The convenience of extension transportation between port
and reprocessing will affect the efficiency of time and cost
It provides the convenience of MNCs in information service
requirement on logistics, commerce, financing activities
It affect the transportation cost of MNCs
It provides the convenience of MNCs in administration and
operational service
It means the operation time of cargos from import to export
at port
The excellent facilities is necessary attracting shipping company and forwarder
The systems such as public, priority, rent system, will affect
the operation efficiency at port
The legalization of port operation will attract MNCs of shipping companies
It affect the transshipment cost of cargos through the effect
of economic scale
It will affect the reprocessing cost of cargos
It will affect the transshipment and reprocessing cost of cargos
It provides the ability of time performance
It means the manufacturing facilities providing deep reprocessing abilities
The deregulation of deep reprocessing activities will attract
MNCs
The legalization of reprocessing environment will attract
MNCs of manufacturing companies
It affect the brand of products, such as made in Taiwan
(MIT), design in Taiwan (DIT)
It includes the cost such as facility, manpower, operation,
etc., cost
It affect the quality of product value-added
The cluster ability of vertical and horizontal industries will
affect the efficiency of deep reprocessing
It will affect the investment of foreign MNCs
The R&D cost affect the deep reprocessing cost of cargos
It means the distance from location to main consumer market, will affect the distribution cost and time
The frequency of shipping line from locations port to main
marketplace
The port competition scenario among competitive locations
will affect the selecting of GLH
The port internationalization affect the competitive ability
of port, and affect the selecting of GLH
It affect the reprocessing cost of cargos through the effect
of economic scale
It will affect the selecting of MNCs at deep reprocessing
activities
It means the cost of deep reprocessing parts cost, will affect
reprocessing cost of cargos

104

K-L. Lee et al.

Appendix B. The fuzziness evaluation value of transshipment type GLH

Indicators

Weight

Unit

Fuzziness preference value

L1

Internal indicators
Political,
0.099
economic, society stability
Ext-TR
0.068
convenience
Information
abilities

0.011

Port rate (terminal rate)

0.206

One stop service

0.056

Transshipment 0.117
time
Port and wa- 0.109
rehouse facilities
Port opera0.089
tion system
Port operation legal guarantee
Containers
handling
volume
Weighted
average value

0.078
0.077
1.000

External indicators
Location
0.260
resistance

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

(0.5377,
0.7453,
0.9434)
5 scales
(0.5000,
0.7245,
0.9388)
5 scales
(0.2621,
0.4757,
0.6893)
5 scales
(0.4128,
0.6147,
0.8165)
5 scales
(0.4020,
0.6176,
0.8333)
5 scales
(0.5354,
0.7576,
0.9798)
5 scales
(0.3679,
0.5755,
0.7830)
5 scales
(0.3592,
0.5728,
0.7864)
5 scales
(0.3558,
0.5673,
0.7788)
Thousand (0.6637,
TEU
0.6637,
0.6637)
(0.4112,
0.5872,
0.7615)

(0.4623,
0.6698,
0.8679)
(0.4796,
0.7041,
0.9286)
(0.4757,
0.6893,
0.9029)
(0.5046,
0.7064,
0.9083)
(0.5000,
0.7157,
09314)
(0.5354,
0.7576,
0.9798)
(0.5189,
0.7264,
0.9340)
(0.5340,
0.7476,
0.9612)
(0.5288,
0.7404,
0.9519)
(0.5199,
0.5199,
0.5199)
(0.4636,
0.6395,
0.8145)

(0.4434,
0.6509,
0.8585)
(0.5612,
0.7857,
1.0000)
(0.4757,
0.6893,
0.9029)
(0.4679,
0.6697,
0.8716)
(0.5392,
0.7549,
0.9510)
(0.5556,
0.7778,
1.0000)
(0.4434,
0.6509,
0.8491)
(0.5534,
0.7670,
0.9709)
(0.5481,
0.7596,
0.9519)
(0.4439,
0.4439,
0.4439)
(0.4534,
0.6293,
0.9091)

(0.5377,
0.7453,
0.9434)
(0.5408,
0.7653,
0.9694)
(0.3592,
0.5728,
0.7864)
(0.1560,
0.3578,
0.5596)
(0.3824,
0.5980,
0.8137)
(0.3333,
0.5556,
0.7778)
(0.3302,
0.5377,
0.7453)
(0.3592,
0.5728,
0.7864)
(0.3942,
0.6058,
0.8173)
(0.6231,
0.6231,
0.6231)
(0.3332,
0.5091,
0.6828)

(0.6509,
0.8585,
1.0000)
(0.3367,
0.5612,
0.7857)
(0.6117,
0.8252,
1.0000)
(0.4495,
0.6514,
0.8532)
(0.5588,
0.7745,
0.9706)
(0.5556,
0.7778,
1.0000)
(0.5943,
0.8019,
0.9717)
(0.6311,
0.8447,
1.0000)
(0.5865,
0.7981,
0.9808)
(1.0000,
1.0000,
1.0000)
(0.5267,
0.7026,
0.8590)

(0.6509,
0.8585,
1.0000)
(0.3776,
0.6020,
0.8265)
(0.6117,
0.8252,
0.9903)
(0.6881,
0.8899,
1.0000)
(0.6176,
0.8333,
1.0000)
(0.5556,
0.7778,
1.0000)
(0.6509,
0.8585,
1.0000)
(0.6117,
0.8252,
0.9903)
(0.6250,
0.8365,
1.0000)
(0.9716,
0.9716,
0.9716)
(0.587,
0.7631,
0.8950)

Miles

(0.6149,
0.6149,
0.6149)
(0.6228,
0.7399,
0.7724)
(0.7005,
0.8895,
0.9791)
(0.6708,
0.8559,
0.974)
(0.7807,
0.8716,
0.9666)
(0.6184,
0.694,
0.7439)

(1.0000,
1.0000,
1.0000)
(0.3244,
0.3244,
0.3244)
(0.4951,
0.6087,
0.8406)
(0.3824,
0.598,
0.7583)
(0.5534,
0.7005,
0.8652)
(0.5858,
0.6619,
0.7580)

(0.8411,
0.8411,
0.8411)
(0.3333,
0.3333,
0.3333)
(0.0000,
0.1068,
0.3204)
(0.4216,
0.6373,
0.8529)
(0.4951,
0.7087,
0.9223)
(0.4442,
0.5324,
0.6411)

(0.8497,
0.8497,
0.8497)
(0.6399,
0.6399,
0.6399)
(0.5146,
0.7282,
0.9417)
(0.3431,
0.5588,
0.7745)
(0.5728,
0.7864,
0.9806)
(0.6232,
0.7320,
0.8368)

(0.3140,
0.3140,
0.3140)
(1.0000,
1.0000,
1.0000)
(0.6117,
0.8252,
0.8995)
(0.598,
0.7116,
0.9068)
(0.3204,
0.534,
0.7476)
(0.5637,
0.6609,
0.7406)

5 scales

Density of
shipping line

0.232

Lines

Regional port
competition

0.192

5 scales

Transshipment 0.113
volume

5 scales

Regional industrial competition

Weighted
average value

5 scales

0.203

1.000

(0.7411,
0.7411,
0.7411)
(0.3155,
0.3155,
0.3155)
(0.3786,
0.5922,
0.8058)
(0.3235,
0.5392,
0.7549)
(0.6117,
0.8252,
1.0000)
(0.4993,
0.6080,
0.7089)

Remark: Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore
(L6 )

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

105

Appendix C. The fuzziness evaluation value of re-export type GLH

Indicators

Weight Unit

Fuzziness preference value

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

5 scales

(0.5625,
0.7708,
0.9583)

(0.5637,
0.7129,
0.8438)

(0.4375,
0.6458,
0.8542)

(0.5625,
0.7708,
0.9583)

(0.6042,
0.8125,
0.9792)

(0.6667,
0.7804,
0.9055)

Reprocessing 0.038
cost

5 scales

(0.6250,
0.8333,
0.9896)

(0.6105,
0.7292,
0.9375)

(0.3542,
0.5625,
0.7708)

(0.6458,
0.8542,
1.0000)

(0.4167,
0.6250,
0.8333)

(0.0938,
0.2917,
0.5000)

Zero custom 0.055

tax

5 scales

(0.5376,
0.7527,
0.9677)

(0.5376,
0.7816,
0.9355)

(0.5591,
0.7742,
0.9785)

(0.6022,
0.8172,
1.0000)

(0.6022,
0.8065,
0.9892)

(0.6237,
0.7009,
0.9049)

Reprocessing 0.091
tax

5 scales

(0.5217,
0.7391,
0.9565)

(0.6558,
0.8851,
0.96740

(0.5870,
0.7935,
0.9783)

(0.5870,
0.8043,
1.0000)

(0.4565,
0.6739,
0.8804)

(0.4783,
0.6957,
0.9022)

Ext-TR
convenience

0.084

5 scales

(0.5591,
0.7742,
0.9785)

(0.5376,
0.7527,
0.9677)

(0.5806,
0.7849,
0.9785)

(0.5376,
0.7527,
0.9677)

(0.6237,
0.8280,
1.0000)

(0.6237,
0.7807,
0.9892)

Reprocessing 0.077
time

5 scales

(0.5106,
0.7234,
0.9362)

(0.5745,
0.7872,
0.9787)

(0.5957,
0.8085,
0.9894)

(0.6170,
0.8298,
1.0000)

(0.4468,
0.6596,
0.8723)

(0.4681,
0.6809,
0.8936)

0.057

5 scales

(0.3226,
0.5376,
0.7527)

(0.5591,
0.7742,
0.9785)

(0.6022,
0.8172,
1.0000)

(0.6022,
0.8172,
1.0000)

(0.4731,
0.6882,
0.9032)

(0.3656,
0.5806,
0.7957)

0.060

5 scales

0.041

5 scales

0.081

5 scales

(0.3736,
0.5934,
0.8132)
(0.5319,
0.7447,
0.9574)
(0.4667,
0.6889,
0.9111)

(0.5495,
0.7692,
0.9890)
(0.5532,
0.7660,
0.9681)
(0.5333,
0.7556,
0.9778)

(0.5714,
0.7912,
1.0000)
(0.5532
0., 660,
0.9681)
(0.5556,
0.7778,
1.0000)

(0.5275,
0.7473,
0.9670)
(0.5106,
0.7234,
0.9362)
(0.4444,
0.6667,
0.8889)

(0.5495,
0.7582,
0.9451)
(0.5957,
0.7979,
0.9574)
(0.5333,
0.7556,
0.9667)

(0.5934,
0.8022,
0.9890)
(0.6596,
0.8617,
1.0000)
(0.5333,
0.7556,
0.9667)

0.081

5 scales

(0.5053,
0.7158,
0.9263)

(0.6316,
0.8316,
0.9895)

(0.6526,
0.8421,
0.9895)

(0.6316,
0.8421,
1.0000)

(0.4211,
0.6316,
0.316)

(0.3579,
0.5684,
0.7684)

Reprocessing 0.105
facilities

5 scales

(0.5053,
0.7053,
0.8947)

(0.6105,
0.8105,
0.9684)

(0.5895,
0.7895,
0.9684)

(0.6526,
0.8526,
1.0000)

(0.5053,
0.7158,
0.9158)

(0.4000,
0.6105,
0.8105)

Re-proc. ext. 0.041

transportation

5 scales

(0.3191,
0.5319,
0.7447)

(0.5106,
0.234,
0.9362)

(0.4681,
0.6809,
0.8936)

(0.6170,
0.8298,
1.0000)

(0.3830,
0.5957,
0.8085)

(0.5106,
0.7234,
0.9362)

Financing
0.065
deregulation

5 scales

(0.4894,
0.7021,
0.9149)

(0.5532,
0.7660,
0.9681)

(0.4681,
0.6809,
0.8936)

(0.5319,
0.7447,
0.9574)

(0.6383,
0.8404,
1.0000)

(0.5957,
0.7979,
0. 681)

R&D cost

5 scales

(0.5652,
0.7826,
0.9891)

(0.5000,
0.7174,
0.9348)

(0.3913,
0.6087,
0.8261)

(0.5870,
0.8043,
1.0000)

(0.5435,
0.7609,
0.9783)

(0.4348,
0.6522,
0.8696)

(0.4962,
0.7093,
0.9162)

(0.5633,
0.7481,
0.9579)

(0.5450,
0.7500,
0.9493)

(0.5771,
0.7901,
0.9778)

(0.5212,
0.7321,
0.8844)

(0.4987,
0.6910,
0.8673)

Internal indicators
Political eco- 0.076
nomic society
stability

Reprocessing
human quality
Indus.
environ. legal
guarantee
Logistics Hub
information
abilities
Products original certificate
Industrial
cluster
enviro.

0.048

Weighted
1.000
average value

106

K-L. Lee et al.

Appendix C. continued
Indicators

Weight Unit

External indicators
Location
0.127
resistance

Miles

Density of
0.231
shipping line

Lines

Regional
industrial
competition
Parts cost

0.389

5 scales

0.253

5 scales

Weighted
1.000
average value

Fuzziness preference value

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

(0.7411,
0.7411,
0.7411)
(0.3155,
0.3155,
0.3155)
(0.6905,
0.7986,
0.9617)
(0.6081,
0.8005,
0.9011)
(0.5895,
0.6802,
0.7691)

(0.6149,
0.6149,
0.6149)
(0.3869,
0.3869,
0.3869)
(0.6965,
0.877,
0.9559)
(0.7541,
0.8916,
0.989)
(0.6292,
0.7342,
0.7895)

(1.0000,
1.0000,
1.0000)
(0.3244,
0.3244,
0.3244)
(0.5208,
0.7798,
0.9375)
(0.5055,
0.7952,
0.9451)
(0.5324,
0.7065,
0.8057)

(0.8411,
0.8411,
0.8411)
(0.3333,
0.3333,
0.3333)
(0.5208,
0.7292,
0.9375)
(0.5714,
0.7912,
1.0000)
(0.5310,
0.6676,
0.8015)

(0.8497,
0.8497,
0.8497)
(0.6399,
0.6399,
0.6399)
(0.5625,
0.6006,
0.9583)
(0.4615,
0.6059,
0.9011)
(0.5913,
0.6427,
0.8565)

(0.3140,
0.3140,
0.3140)
(1.0000,
1.0000,
1.0000)
(0.5458,
0.6107,
0.7633)
(0.4512,
0.5663,
0.6255)
(0.5973,
0.6517,
0.7261)

Remark: Locations: Shanghai (L1 ); Busan (L2 ); Kaohsiung (L3 ); Shenzhen (L4 ); HK (L5 ); Singapore
(L6 )

References
Bellman, RE., Zadel, L.A.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 17(4), 141164 (1970)
Bortolan, G., Degani, R.: A review of some method for ranking fuzzy subsets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 15,
119 (1985)
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J.: Logistical managementthe Integrated Supply Chain Process. McGrawHill, New York (1996)
Chang, H.H., Huang, W.C.: Application of a quantification SWOT analytical method. J. Math. Comput.
Model. 43, 158169 (2006)
Chen, S.J., Huang, C.L., Huang, F.P.: Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1992)
Chen, S.H., Hsieh, C.H.: Representation, ranking, distance, and similarity of L-R type fuzzy number
and application. Aust. J. Intell. Process. Syst. 6(4), 217229 (2000)
Chou, C.C., Chu, C.W., Liang, G.S.: Competitiveness analysis of major ports in Eastern Asia. J. East.
Asia Soc. Transportation Stud. 5, 682697 (2003)
Christensen, R., Berg, N., Salter, M.: Policy Formulation and Administration, Ill.Richard D. Irwin, Homewood (1976)
Churchill, G.A.: Marketing research: methodological foundation, 5th edn. The Dryden Press, New
York (1991)
Containerization International, 2004. http:/www.c1-online.co.uk
David, F.R.: Strategic Management, Concepts and Cases, 8th edn. Prentice Hall, Englwood Cliffs,
NJ (2001)
David, F.R.: Strategic Management, 7th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1998)
Dubois, D., Prade H.: Operations on fuzzy number. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 9, 613626 (1978)
Dornier, P.P., Ernst, R., Fender, M., Kouveilis, P.: Global Operation and Logistics. Wiley, New
York (1998)
Kaohsiung Port Authority, 2005. http://www.khb.gov.tw
Kim, K., Park, K.S.: Ranking fuzzy numbers with index of optimism. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 35, 143150 (1990)
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M.: Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
in SWOT analysisa hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. For. Policy
Econ. 1, 4152 (2000)
Laarhoven, P.J.M.: A fuzzy extension of Saatys priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 11, 229241 (1983)

Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub

107

Lin, S.C., Liang, G.S., Lee, K.L.: Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in location mode of
international logistics on airports competition evaluation. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 14(1), 2535 (2006)
Lou, G. S.: The competitive strategy of global logistics system of international port, A thesis for the
master degree of department of harbor and river. National Taiwan Ocean University (2004)
Luis, M. de C.I., Antonio, G.M.: A subjective approach for ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 29, 145153 (1989)
Lu, C.S.: Market segment evaluation and international distribution centers. Transportation Res. Part
E 39, 4960 (2003)
Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, NY (1980)
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: The Logic of Priorities. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, MA (1982)
Sheu, J.B.: A hybrid fuzzy-based approach for identifying global logistics strategies. Transportation
Res. Part E 40, 3961 (2004)
Stewart, R.A., Mohamed, S., Daet, R.: Strategic implementation of IT/IS projects in construction:
a case study. Autom. Construction 11, 681694 (2002)
Tao, H.O., Park, J.H.: Multinational firms location preference for regional distribution centers: focus
on the Northeast Asian region. Transportation Res. Part E 40, 101121 (2004)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338353 (1965)
Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning, Part I,
II and III. Inf. Sci. 8, 199249, 301357; 9, 4380 (1975, 1976)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.