Developing Key Performance Indicators for a Port in Indonesia

Abstract

Ports play a crucial role in Indonesia’s economy, yet many, particularly smaller ports, lack standardized port performance indicators (PPIs) to assess and improve operational efficiency. Existing studies primarily focus on financial and operational performance, often employing either the balanced scorecard (BSC) or PESTLE analysis in isolation, with limited integration of sustainability concepts, such as smart port and green port frameworks. This study bridges this gap, aiming to develop and validate a comprehensive PPI framework that combines BSC, PESTLE, and circular economy smart and green port principles to create holistic performance assessment tools for ports. The research used a three-round Delphi method, incorporating expert evaluations and consensus from academics, consultants, port authorities, and customers to validate key performance indicators. A total of 127 PPIs were initially identified through a literature review and expert consultations, using strict selection criteria—standard deviation ≤ 1.5, interquartile range (Q3–Q1) ≤ 2.5, and ≥51% expert agreement (ratings 8–10). The final validated framework includes 114 indicators covering financial, operational, environmental, and strategic dimensions. This study provides valuable insights for port authorities to optimize performance and align with global best practices by integrating internal and external factors into a comprehensive model.

1. Introduction

Ports are pivotal economic centers in global multimodal transportation and supply chain networks [1]. Indonesia, the world’s largest archipelagic nation, relies heavily on its ports for domestic and international trade, prompting the government to launch feeder-port development projects to enhance inter-island connectivity [2]. These ports play a vital role in Indonesia’s logistics operations, serving as an integral component of the national infrastructure that supports trade and commercial activities. They provide a broad array of services essential to business operations, functioning as hubs for docking ships, embarking and disembarking passengers, loading cargo, also facilitating both intra-modal and inter-modal transportation [3].

Given their importance to the Indonesian economy, port performance is critical for ensuring a steady flow of goods and supply chains. Reliable port services are, thus, paramount for stakeholder satisfaction [1]. To remain competitive, Indonesian ports must deliver high performance through fast service and cost efficiency, achievable via port performance indicators (PPIs). Organizational performance measurement is vital for effective management [4], and in the supply chain context, it functions as a strategic tool for planning and coordinating activities [5].

However, many Indonesian ports, particularly smaller and regional ones, do not employ such performance indicators. While essential for business development, port authorities often rely solely on internal metrics, like net profit and operational smoothness. Effective performance measurement, however, necessitates considering external factors and the competitive landscape. In a global economy reliant on maritime transport, ports face increasing pressure to optimize their performance across economic, environmental, energy, and functional dimensions, impacting their sustainability [6]. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to port indicator measurement, encompassing both internal and external factors, is crucial for enhancing performance [6].

Recent studies have employed the balanced scorecard (BSC) for internal factor analysis and politics, economics, social, technology, legal, environment (PESTLE) scores for external factors [7,8]. Additionally, green and smart port concepts contribute to the assessment of external influences [9,10]. However, these methodologies are seldom integrated, particularly within the port sector. This study addresses that gap by proposing an integrated framework that combines the BSC, PESTLE, and sustainability principles to enhance port performance. Such a holistic approach—incorporating both internal and external dimensions—is essential given the complexity of port systems [11].

Beyond the synthesis of the existing literature, this study incorporates indicators derived from government-owned ports and expert brainstorming. As Radovic and Stevic [12] emphasize, the evaluation and selection of key performance indicators (KPIs) should be tailored to the specific characteristics of each organization, underscoring the value of incorporating expert opinions for effective management. While various methodologies exist for evaluating and selecting KPIs, such as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) [13,14,15], this study employs the Delphi technique. The Delphi method is particularly well-suited for establishing port performance criteria and minimizing bias in individual perceptions among expert judgments [14].

This research utilizes a three-round Delphi technique, a group assessment method for achieving consensus among expert judgments [16]. Questionnaires developed using the Delphi technique have demonstrated validity and reliability in evaluating port performance [17]. This paper identifies critical implementation aspects in comprehensively merging frameworks and integrates the BSC, PESTLE, and green/smart port concepts to develop robust port performance indicators, embedding the latter within PESTLE’s technology and environment elements. This integrative approach distinguishes this study and offers a valuable reference for academics and practitioners in developing PPIs, particularly for smaller ports which are often overlooked in research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Overview of Existing Port Performance Indicators (Global and Indonesia)

Effective port performance measurement is essential for efficiency, competitiveness, and sustainable development. Globally, ports use various KPIs to assess operational, financial, and environmental effectiveness. Common international indicators include vessel turnaround time (VTT), berth occupancy, crane productivity, cargo dwell time, container throughput, and yard utilization [1,18]. These provide benchmarks for performance comparison across time and contexts.

Comparative analyses, such as that by Ha and Yang [18], highlighted the interdependency of operational indicators, like VTT and crane productivity. Yeo et al. [1] emphasized the increasing relevance of customer-oriented indicators, including service quality and logistics integration. Mazibuko et al. [19] underscored the importance of ship waiting time and berth availability, especially in congested African and Asian ports.

In Indonesia, Hamid [7] found that the BSC was effective in enhancing a state-owned port’s (Pelindo IV) competitive advantage. The study found a strong, positive relationship between BSC implementation and business competitiveness, especially when focusing on financial performance. The BSC aligned strategy with operations, improved learning, and clarified goals. However, the application was limited to internal operational, financial, and customer service metrics. The study did not address broader sustainability indicators, external stakeholder involvement, or standardized KPI practices across the national port network. It also did not evaluate other ports beyond Pelindo IV, nor did it explore national benchmarking mechanisms.

Indonesia’s unique challenges, including its archipelagic nature, underdeveloped hinterland access, and technological disparities, complicate the direct application of global KPIs. Localized indicators are needed, incorporating national priorities, regulations, and infrastructure readiness.

This study addresses this gap by developing a context-sensitive, holistic framework integrating international best practices and national relevance, using the BSC, PESTLE analysis, as well as smart and green port concepts, for applicability to smaller ports lacking measurement criteria.

2.2. Balance Scorecard

BSC is a strategic tool that translates organizational vision and objectives into actionable initiatives [20]. It facilitates employee understanding of the organization’s mission and strategy, aligning activities with goals [21].

The BSC comprises the following four performance dimensions: financial, customer, learning and growth, and internal business processes [7]. These provide a balanced approach to assessing organizational performance [22], ensuring long-term sustainability by aligning strategic goals across each dimension [21].

Table 1. Performance indicators based on BSC.

Dimension	Sub-Dimension	Indicators	References
Financial	Profitability	Revenue growth, EBIT (operating profit margin), net profit margin, operating cash flow	[18,23,24]
	Financial performance (FP)	Berth occupancy revenue per TEU	[23]
	Liquidity and solvency	Current ratio, debt to equity	[18]
	The cost of poor profitability	Conformance cost, non-conformance cost, opportunity cost	[25]
Customers	Service fulfilment	Overall service reliability, responsiveness to special requests, accuracy of documents/information, incidence of cargo damage, incidence of service delay, unified key account management	[11,26], government-owned port indicator
	Service cost	Overall service costs, cargo handling charges, value-added service, overall cost of cargo loading/discharging and (re)stows and other ship operations	[4,18,26]
Internal business process	Productivity	Ship load rate, berth occupancy, crane productivity, yard utilization, labor productivity, crane efficiency, traffic handled (port productivity), number of vessels handled, average output per hook per shift, idling time at berth	[4,18,19,26,27]
	Output	Throughput growth, vessel call size growth, container throughput, non-container throughput, government-owned port indicator	[4,18,28,29]
	Lead time	Vessel turnaround time (VTT), truck turnaround time, cargo dwell time, average pre-berthing waiting time (APBWT)	[4,18,23,26]
	Logistics and operational performance (LOP)	Maritime (liner) connectivity, short sea connectivity, gate productivity, transportation cost per cargo	[23]
Learning and growth	Human capital	Knowledge and skills, capabilities, commitment and loyalty, % female nominated talent, % of millennials (<40 years) in top talent, technical skills standards program	[18,26], government-owned port indicator
	Organization capital	Culture, leadership, teamwork, millennial successor setup	[18,26], government-owned port indicator
	Corporate social performance (CSP)	Effective personnel ratio, employee turnover rate, training hours per employee	[23,30]

summarizes port performance indicators based on BSC dimensions, drawing from the literature, government-owned port indicators, and expert interviews.

2.3. PESTLE

PESTLE analysis strategically examines macro-environmental factors—political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental—influencing organizational operations and planning [31], providing an external overview for understanding market dynamics and business positioning. In port operations, PESTLE factors are crucial for evaluating external influences on performance [8].

The technological dimension, including R&D, automation, technology incentives, and change, links to smart port development, aiming for enhanced performance via full automation and IoT integration [3,32]. The environmental dimension aligns with the green port concept, emphasizing ecological and environmental considerations, integrating sustainability, energy conservation, community development, and economic interests [33].

Table 2. Performance indicators based on PESTLE, smart port, and green port indicators.

Dimension	Sub Dimension	Indicators	References
Politic	Stakeholder influence	The level of availability of information regarding the expansion project to the public, level of engagement between port authorities and policymakers	[8,34]
	Port policy	Port KPI success rate, level of implementation of sustainable port policy, level of implementation of security policies at ports	[8,35] government-owned port indicator, expert judgment
Economy	Funding and investment	Amount of foreign direct investment (FDI), value distributed to shareholders, investment level, level of achievement of project milestones related to funding initiatives (%)	[23,35,36], government-owned port indicator, expert judgment
	Port value-added as % of GDP	Port’s value-added contribution rate to GDP, port-related jobs	[23]
Social	Social contribution	Corporate social responsibility (CSR) cost	[8]
	Top management commitment	Level of management support for worker safety conditions, commitment to environmental management	[8,35,36]
	Safety and security	Number of accidents at the port, amount of time wasted due to accidents, number of deaths at the port	[24,30,37]
	Traffic congestion	Level of availability of access infrastructure to the port, average time in hinterland, traffic volume	[37,38], expert judgment
Technology	Latest technological development	Level of achievement of project milestones related to technology initiatives (%)	Government-owned port indicator
	Automation	Smart ships, smart containers or connected containers, automated operations	[39]
	Intelligent infrastructure	Port road management system, intelligent railway, vessel traffic management (VTM), smart WMS system, localization technologies (GPS, RFID, etc.), cloud computing (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS), sensors (humidity, temperature, etc.), web-based communication platform, gate management	[6,40]
	Integrated monitoring and optimization system	Connectivity hardware, such as cameras, wireless technology, sensors, and RFID tags, the availability of software for data gathering, visualization, analysis, and optimization	[6]
	Efficient energy consumption	Direct energy consumption, indirect energy consumption	[6,29]
	Energy management	Monitoring and optimization of energy consumption, energy management system	[6,41]
	Production and use of renewables	Use of wind energy, use of solar power, use of biomass energy, use of wave and tidal energy	[6,42,43]
Environment	Energy consumption rate	Electricity consumption rate, fuel consumption rate, water consumption rate	[6,35,42,43,44]
	Land use for transportation	Land use rate	[38]
	Emission to soil	Emission into soil and groundwater	[45]
	Technical and operational	Environmental accidents, dredging frequency, number of environmental complaints	[36,46] expert judgment
	Discharges to water/sediments	Discharges of wastewater, sediment quality assessment	[45,47]
	Waste generation	Generation of hazardous waste, generation of non-hazardous waste, generation of recyclable garbage	[45,47]
	Liquid pollution management	Fuel spill contingency plan, sewage treatment, hazard waste management, ballast water pollutant control, waste dumping management	[14,47]

presents port performance indicators categorized by PESTLE dimensions, derived from the literature, government port indicators, expert interviews, as well as smart/green port indicators.

2.4. Delphi Method

The Delphi method is widely used by academic research as a valuable technique for reaching consensus. This method collects data from a panel of experts using several rounds of questionnaires [48]. The Delphi method represents a structured group communication process for evaluating evidence collectively and providing expert judgment [49]. A major strength of the Delphi method in comparison to other group-based techniques is the reduced influence of social pressures among respondents [49]. Walters et al. [50] showed that it is an efficient, systematic, and structured approach that can be used to address complex issues in a range of disciplines, such as medicine, social policy, tourism, and sustainability science.

Table 3. Previous studies of the Delphi method.

Author (Year)	Research Scope	Participants	Likert Scale	Measure of Consensus	Delphi Rounds
[51]	This study used the Delphi method to engender and prioritize a list of the key elements of effective gamification in the course of corporate training.	Pre-round of the Delphi method: 15 1st round: 15 2nd round: 14 3rd round: 14	5-point (from not at all important to very important	SD ≤ 1.5 IQR ≤ 1 ≥4 ratio more than 51%	3 Rounds and a Pre-round of the Delphi Method
[52]	This study identified agile methods and practices in traditional logistics companies and startups, highlighting key approaches, benefits, and challenges.	1st round: 29 2nd round: 25 3rd round: 22	7-point (from no know-how to very extensive know-how)	≥5 ratio	3 rounds
[53]	Used modified Delphi method to develop a checklist of essential supervisory behaviors that pediatric residents demonstrate while leading inpatient, non-ICU, no specialty teaching rounds and to pilot the checklist	1st round: 7 2nd round: 6	3-point (from strongly agree to do not agree)	A criterion was eliminated if >25% of experts felt it was not observable	2 rounds
[54]	The Delphi method was used to provide a standard approach model for the experts in the evaluation of medical malpractice claims	1st round: 11 2nd round: 11	7-point (from strongly disagree to strongly agree)	Interquartile range value R is 1 or under 1	3 rounds
[55]	This research used the Delphi method to determine the key components of a child ISS for Iran and to construct a framework for its implementation	1st round: 16 2nd round: 16	4-point (from unimportant to very important)	Items were accepted if they acquired a more than 75% collective consensus of 4 (very important) and 3 (important).	2 rounds
[56]	This paper used the Delphi method to determine future projections of European air passengers, their requirements, and which scenarios could possibly occur	1st round: 43 2nd round: 38	7-point (from not probable to very probable)	IQR ≤ 1	2 rounds

presents the use of the Delphi method in previous studies.

3. Methodology

3.1. Development of Port Performance Indicator (PPI)

This study integrates the BSC, PESTLE analysis, and smart/green port concepts to establish a comprehensive and balanced approach to port performance measurement. Each framework offers a distinct perspective, as follows: the BSC focuses on internal performance indicators, including financial, internal business processes, and customer-related dimensions. This internal focus is essential for evaluating a port’s operational effectiveness and inherent capabilities. Conversely, the PESTLE framework addresses the external environmental factors—political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental—that influence a port’s adaptability and long-term competitiveness.

By incorporating smart and green port concepts, the model also emphasizes innovation and sustainability. These concepts align with PESTLE’s technological and environmental dimensions and complement the strategic orientation of the BSC. For instance, smart technologies can enhance internal processes (BSC) while simultaneously addressing external technological shifts (PESTLE). Similarly, green initiatives support compliance with environmental regulations and broader sustainability goals, thereby increasing a port’s resilience to future challenges.

In this study, PPI development is based on a comprehensive analysis of both the internal and external factors that affect port operations. This integrated model, illustrated in Figure 1, builds upon the conceptual framework of Praharsi et al. [11].

3.2. Expert Selection and Data Collection

3.2.1. Expert Profile

This research incorporated expert opinions to obtain essential reference data. Experts were selected using purposive sampling, based on their professional background, familiarity with port operations, and involvement in decision-making roles. Each participant possessed a minimum of five years of relevant experience in port management, consulting, logistics, or maritime academia. Experts were consulted to provide input on the PPIs’ design, including recommendations for eliminating or adding PPIs, and to assess the importance level of each PPI. These expert judgments were gathered from individuals with in-depth knowledge of ports and diverse backgrounds, enhancing the applicability of the study’s results. The profiles of the experts who contributed to the Delphi survey are detailed in

Table 4. Expert profile for the Delphi method.

Expert ID	Affiliation	Institutions	Background	Years of Experience	Role/Expertise
E1	Academic	Shipbuilding Institute of Polytechnic Surabaya	Port and shipping management	30+	Port Operations and Management, Port Logistics
E2	Academic	Shipbuilding Institute of Polytechnic Surabaya	Engineering management	20+	Maritime Business
E3	Consultant	Scheepvaart en Transport College (STC)	Logistics and supply chain management	10+	Port logistics
E4	Consultant	Scheepvaart en Transport College (STC)	Transport, infrastructure, and logistics	10+	Port operations and management
E5	Consultant	Scheepvaart en Transport College (STC)	Transportation, infrastructure, and logistics	10+	Transport and port specialist
E6	Consultant	Scheepvaart en Transport College (STC)	Logistics, procurement, and supply chain management	20+	Port operations and management
E7	Consultant	Scheepvaart en Transport College (STC)	Port management	30+	Terminal operations
E8	Port authorities	PELINDO	Finance	20+	Port finance
E9	Port authorities	PELINDO	Technology management	10+	Port OHS and management system
E10	Port authorities	PELINDO	Port management	20+	Port operations and management
E11	Customer	PT Puteri Maju Sukses	Marine technology	30+	Shipping management
E12	Customer	PT Alfaj Cargo	Shipping management	25+	Port and customs management

.

3.2.2. Data Collection

This study used both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Qualitative data were gathered from a review of the current literature, using the following keywords: “Port Performance Indicators (PPIs)”, “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)”, “Balanced Scorecard”, “PESTLE”, “Sustainability”, “Green Port”, “Smart Port”, and “the Delphi Method”. This review yielded 25 relevant studies from the past ten years. The literature review results were screened using expert judgment, with experts providing input on PPIs not in the initial list. Additionally, indicators from government-owned ports were included. Quantitative data were gathered through questionnaires, distributed to experts to evaluate the importance of the compiled PPIs. Questionnaires were distributed online via Google Forms and Microsoft Word, and responses were analyzed using the Delphi method.

3.2.3. Profile Port

The primary output of this study is a port performance indicator (PPI) framework, which is tested for ports in Indonesia. Tanjung Perak Port serves as the reference port for this research. A description of the port is provided in

Table 5. Profile of the port.

	Tanjung Perak Port
Port businesses	Multipurpose, passenger, general cargo, international dry bulk, container terminal
Type of port	Public
PPIs included	Yes
Implementation of green port concepts	Yes
Implementation of smart port concepts	Yes

.

To ensure relevance, this study referenced Tanjung Perak Port, a publicly owned port managed by the Indonesian Ministry of Transportation. This port operates with a dual mandate, achieving operational efficiency and financial sustainability alongside fulfilling public service obligations concerning accessibility, connectivity, and environmental responsibility. Consequently, Tanjung Perak’s performance goals encompass both profitability metrics (e.g., revenue growth, berth utilization) and non-financial priorities, like environmental protection, safety, and stakeholder engagement.

These dual strategic objectives were explicitly communicated to the expert Delphi panel, selected for their expertise in both public and private Indonesian port operations, to inform their evaluation of the proposed performance indicators.

3.3. Application of Delphi Technique

3.3.1. Round 1

This stage began by distributing a list of PPIs to experts. Then, the experts were asked to analyze and evaluate the list of PPIs to determine their suitability.

3.3.2. Round 2

In the second round, twelve experts evaluated PPIs via a 10-point Likert scale questionnaire [57]. Acceptance was determined by calculating the mean, Q1, median, Q3, coefficient of variation (CV), modus, and standard deviation (SD). PPIs were accepted if they simultaneously met the following three criteria [56]: (1) SD ≤ 1.5 (statistical agreement) [58]; (2) interquartile range or IQR (Q3–Q1) ≤ 2.5 (reduced outlier impact and central consistency) [59]; and (3) ≥51% rating 8–10 (high importance threshold). These thresholds were adapted from prior Delphi studies [57]; using all three ensured rigor [56]. PPIs not meeting all criteria (rejected) were revised by adding interquartile range (IQR) “shading” to facilitate reconsideration based on group opinion for Round 3.

3.3.3. Round 3

In the third Delphi round, questionnaires displaying the aggregated results from Round 2 were distributed to the expert panel (n = 11), yielding 10 valid responses. Experts were asked to either concur with the previously established group opinion or provide their individual rating along with a rationale for any divergence. The data from this round were then analyzed using the criteria defined in Round 2 to finalize the acceptance or rejection of each PPI. This iterative process ensured that the final selection of PPIs, while initially grounded in the literature, was ultimately shaped by expert consensus and justification.

4. Discussion

4.1. Delphi Round 1

The study commenced with the development of a preliminary PPI framework derived from a comprehensive literature review, which identified 10 key dimensions and 112 individual indicators. A panel of 12 experts, representing various port stakeholders (including users, consultants, authorities, and academics), then participated in the first Delphi round. Their task was to assess the literature-based indicators for comprehensiveness and relevance, and to propose any missing indicators. This expert consultation, along with consideration of internal PPIs from government-owned ports, yielded an additional 15 indicators. Consequently, a total of 127 indicators were compiled for subsequent analysis.

Table 6. Port performance indicators.

Dimension	Indicators
Financial (11)	Revenue growth, EBIT (operating profit margin), net profit margin, operating cash flow, berth occupancy revenue per TEU, current ratio, debt to total asset, debt to equity, conformance cost, non-conformance cost, opportunity cost
Customers (10)	Overall service reliability, responsiveness to special requests, accuracy of documents/information, incidence of cargo damage, incidence of service delay, unified key account management, overall service costs, cargo handling charges, value-added service, overall cost of cargo loading/discharging and (re)stows and other ship operations
Internal business process (22)	Ship load rate, berth occupancy, crane productivity, yard utilization, labor productivity, crane efficiency, traffic handled (port productivity), number of vessels handled, average output per hook per shift, idling time at berth, throughput growth, vessel call size growth, container throughput, non-container throughput, vessel turnaround time, truck turnaround time, cargo dwell time, average pre-berthing waiting time (APBWT), maritime (liner) connectivity, short sea connectivity, gate productivity, transportation cost per cargo
Learning and growth (13)	Knowledge and skills, capabilities, commitment and loyalty, % female nominated talent, % of millennials (<40 years) in top talent, technical skills standards program, culture, leadership, teamwork, millennial successor setup, effective personnel ratio, employee turnover rate, training hours per employee
Politic (5)	The level of availability of information regarding the expansion project to the public, level of engagement between port authorities and policymakers, port KPI success rate, level of implementation of sustainable port policy, level of implementation of security policies at ports
Economy (6)	Amount of foreign direct investment (FDI), value distributed to shareholders, investment level, level of achievement of project milestones related to funding initiatives (%), port’s value-added contribution rate to GDP, port-related jobs
Social (9)	Corporate social responsibility (CSR) cost, level of management support for worker safety conditions, commitment to environmental management, number of accidents at the port, amount of time wasted due to accidents, number of deaths at the port, level of availability of access infrastructure to the port, average time in hinterland, traffic volume
Technology (25)	Level of achievement of project milestones related to technology initiatives (%), smart ships, smart containers or connected containers, automated operations, port road management system, intelligent railway, vessel traffic management (VTM), smart WMS system, localization technologies (GPS, RFID, etc.), cloud computing (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS), parking space management, sensors (humidity, temperature, etc.), web-based communication platform, gate management, connectivity hardware, such as cameras, wireless technology, sensors, and RFID tags, the availability of software for data gathering, visualization, analysis, and optimization, direct energy consumption, indirect energy consumption, monitoring and optimization of energy consumption, energy management system, use of wind energy, use of solar power, use of biomass energy, use of wave and tidal energy
Legal (3)	Number of collaborations with external parties, institutional communication level, number of standards or regulations enforced related to external policies
Environment (23)	Electricity consumption rate, fuel consumption rate, water consumption rate, land use rate, emission of combustion gases, emission of particulate matter, odor emission, monitoring system for noise level, reducing noise and vibrations from cargo handling equipment and vessels, Lden—noise pollution, emission to soil and groundwater, environmental accidents, dredging frequency, number of environmental complaints, discharges of wastewater, sediment quality assessment, generation of hazardous waste, generation of non-hazardous waste, generation of recyclable garbage, fuel spill contingency plan, sewage treatment, hazard waste management, ballast water pollutant control, waste dumping management

presents the final set of indicators, categorized by their origin (the literature, expert feedback, and government port resources).

4.2. Delphi Round 2

The second round of the Delphi process involved the distribution of questionnaires containing the 127 indicators identified in the previous stage to the same panel of 12 experts. These experts were requested to evaluate the importance level of each indicator. Following the collection of the completed questionnaires, the data were processed to determine the acceptance or rejection of individual indicators based on predefined criteria outlined in Section 3.3. This analysis resulted in the rejection of 72 indicators and the acceptance of 55 indicators. Subsequently, the accepted indicators were ranked within their respective dimensions. The mean value of the experts’ ratings for each indicator served as the basis for this ranking, with higher mean values indicating a higher level of importance and, thus, a higher rank. The detailed results of this round, including the ranking of the accepted indicators, are provided in the Appendix A.

4.3. Delphi Round 3

The third Delphi round involved re-administering questionnaires, displaying IQR (Q1–Q3) shading from Round 2, to the expert panel (n = 11, 10 valid responses). Experts either confirmed the group opinion or provided individual ratings with justifications for deviations. Data were analyzed using Round 2 criteria to finalize PPI acceptance and rejection. This iterative process ensured that the final PPI selection was informed by both the literature and expert consensus with justification.

According to

Table 7. Final list of validated port performance indicators.

Dimension	Indicators
Financial (11)	Revenue growth
	EBIT (operating profit) margin
	Net profit margin
	Operating cash flow
	Berth occupancy revenue per TEU
	Current ratio
	Debt to total asset
	Debt to equity
	Conformance cost
	Non-conformance cost
	Opportunity cost
Customers (10)	Overall service reliability
	Responsiveness to special requests
	Accuracy of documents/information
	Incidence of cargo damage
	Incidence of service delay
	Unified key account management
	Overall service costs
	Cargo handling charges
	Value-added service
	Overall cost of cargo loading/discharging and (re)stows and other ship operations
Internal business process (21)	Ship load rate
	Berth occupancy
	Crane productivity
	Yard utilization
	Labor productivity
	Crane efficiency
	Traffic handled (port productivity)
	Number of vessels handled
	Average output per hook per shift
	Idling time at berth
	Throughput growth
	Vessel call size growth
	Container throughput
	Non-container throughput
	Vessel turnaround time
	Truck turnaround time
	Cargo dwell time
	Average pre-berthing waiting time (APBWT)
	Maritime (liner) connectivity
	Short sea connectivity
	Gate productivity
Learning and growth (12)	Knowledge and skills
	Capabilities
	% female nominated talent
	% of millennials (<40 years) in top talent
	Technical skills standards program
	Culture
	Leadership
	Teamwork
	Millennial successor setup
	Effective personnel ratio
	Employee turnover rate
	Training hours per employee
Politics (5)	The level of availability of information regarding the expansion project to the public
	Level of engagement between port authorities and policymakers
	Port KPI success rate
	Level of implementation of sustainable port policy
	Level of implementation of security policies at ports
Economics (6)	Amount of foreign direct investment (FDI)
	Value distributed to shareholders
	Investment level
	Level of achievement of project milestones related to funding initiatives (%)
	Port’s value-added contribution rate to GDP
	Port-related jobs
Social (8)	Level of management support for worker safety conditions
	Commitment to environmental management
	Number of accidents at the port
	Amount of time wasted due to accidents
	Number of deaths at the port
	Level of availability of access infrastructure to the port
	Average time in hinterland
	Traffic volume
Technology (15)	Level of achievement of project milestones related to technology initiatives (%)
	Intelligent railway
	Smart maintenance
	Vessel traffic management (VTM)
	Smart WMS system
	Localization technologies (GPS, RFID, etc.)
	Cloud computing (SaaS, PaaS, IaaS)
	Parking space management
	Web-based communication platform
	Connectivity hardware (cameras, wireless technology, sensors, RFID tags)
	The availability of software for data collection, visualization, analysis, and optimization
	Direct energy consumption
	Indirect energy consumption
	Monitoring and optimization of energy consumption
	Energy management system
Legal (3)	Number of collaborations with external parties
	Institutional communication level
	Number of standards or regulations enforced related to external policies
Environment (23)	Electricity consumption rate
	Fuel consumption rate
	Water consumption rate
	Land use rate
	Combustion gas emission rate
	Emission of particulate matter
	Odor emission
	Monitoring system for noise level
	Reducing noise and vibrations from cargo handling equipment and vessels
	Lden—noise pollution
	Emission to soil and groundwater
	Environmental accidents
	Number of environmental complaints
	Dredging frequency
	Sediment quality assessment
	Total wastewater
	Level of B3 waste
	Level of non-B3 waste
	Material recycling rate (tons)
	Fuel spill contingency plan
	Sewage treatment
	Ballast water pollutant control
	Waste dumping management

, of the initial 127 PPIs, 114 were validated based on SD ≤ 1.5, IQR ≤ 2.5, and ≥ 51% high-importance ratings (8–10). Conversely, 13 PPIs were rejected, including transportation cost per cargo (internal business process), commitment and loyalty (learning and growth), CSR cost (social), and several technology-related indicators (smart ships, automated operations, gate management, and renewable energy sources). The rejection suggests a lack of consistent expert agreement or high response variability. A full list is in Appendix A. Subsequent sections analyze the validated dimensions, ranked by mean values.

Political dimension: The level of engagement between port authorities and policymakers stands out as the highest ranking among the accepted five PPIs. This PPI is crucial within the context of this study as it relates to stakeholder influence and the integration of clusters within the port as policy drivers. Rijkure [34] posits that the port cluster integration indicator serves to determine the establishment of a cohesive system within the port environment. Furthermore, Cullinane and Christodoulou [8] identify the port energy management system (PEMS) as one such existing system or policy within the port. They also assert that stakeholder involvement is instrumental in the development and implementation of such systems and policies [8]. Aligning with this, Rijkure [34] also suggests that clusters can serve as a unifying mechanism for stakeholders. Schipper, Vreugdenhil, and De Jong [44] highlight the role of port authorities in defining and monitoring strategic development through planning initiatives. PPIs offer a valuable means of assessing performance outcomes across diverse aspects, thereby revealing the inherent complexity of the port system [34]. This perspective is corroborated by Kirchherr et al. [60], who emphasize the necessity of political and policy support for a successful transition towards a circular economy.

Economic dimension: The highest-ranking of the six accepted PPIs was the contribution level of the port’s added value to GDP, quantifying the port’s national GDP contribution (%). Rijkure [34] emphasizes its importance due to transportation’s link to economic circulation. Enhancing the port’s added value is expected to improve social welfare and economic value creation in Indonesia, aligning with Song et al. [61] on its role in decarbonization and digitalization.

Social dimension: Eight PPIs were accepted within this dimension, with one rejection. The highest-ranking PPI was the level of availability of access infrastructure to the port. The significant weighting of port infrastructure in performance evaluations, as demonstrated by its high scores in six of mainland China’s ports, underscores its importance [60]. Pasetto et al. [62] further emphasize the necessity for ports to upgrade and reconfigure infrastructure availability to accommodate anticipated future freight traffic demands. Moreover, improvements in port infrastructure can foster enhanced community engagement and city–port interactions, potentially encouraging greater public participation [43]. Conversely, the rejected PPI was corporate social responsibility (CSR) cost [62]. This rejection suggests the expert panel perceived a weak direct correlation between CSR expenditure and port performance, potentially aligning with the managerial agency problem, where CSR activities may serve managerial interests rather than directly enhancing organizational utility.

Technology dimension: The fifteen accepted PPIs were the level of achievement of project milestones related to technology initiatives, localization technologies (GPS, RFID, etc.), parking space management, intelligent railway, smart maintenance, cloud computing, web-based communication platform, the connectivity of hardware, the availability of software, direct and indirect energy consumption, energy management system, and the monitoring and optimization of energy consumption. Among those, the highest ranking was vessel traffic management (VTM), a system coordinating ship movements with port services for safety, fluency, and resource planning [63]. Javier and Aguardo [64] note that IMO mandates VTM for navigation safety, security, and environmental protection. Port Rotterdam implemented VTM to obtain reliable information and minimize delays [65]. Zhang et al. [42] identified feasibility as key for smart/green port adoption (e.g., Raffina, Los Angeles, Long Beach), supported by Tang [66] on technological efficiency driving dynamic efficiency in Chinese smart ports. Nevertheless, ten indicators were rejected (e.g., smart ships, automated operations, and renewable energies) due to limited smart port implementation in Indonesia, making automation-related indicators currently irrelevant for performance assessment. The Indonesian Sea Transportation Directorate noted the need for improvements in human resources, information and communication technology, as well as infrastructure for smart port implementation.

Legal dimension: The highest-ranking of the three accepted PPIs was the level of institutional communication, critical for understanding a port’s operational context, particularly regulatory and legal aspects [67]. Effective institutional communication is posited to foster cooperative relationships with other ports. Furthermore, communication deficiencies are identified as a significant challenge within the transportation sector, underscoring the necessity of mitigating potential risks [68]. The experience in mainland China’s ports, as highlighted by Song et al. [61], indicates that the decentralization of port functions, responsibilities, and legal aspects from central to local government did not inherently yield positive outcomes suggesting a continued need for robust intergovernmental communication and support. Consequently, strengthening intergovernmental communication is deemed essential for optimal port governance and development.

Environmental dimension: Twenty-three PPIs were accepted, with none rejected. The highest-ranking PPI in this dimension was the land use rate. Reisi et al. [69] defined this as the area of land designated for transportation infrastructure, estimated using land use maps to enhance sustainable transportation at ports. The evolving energy transition is fundamentally changing ports through land use [43], necessitating the reconfiguration of port areas to accommodate new, cleaner energy infrastructure and services, which will ultimately impact the port’s environmental footprint and sustainability initiatives.

Financial dimension: Eleven PPIs were accepted in this dimension, with berth occupancy revenue per TEU achieving the highest rank. This indicator is a key component influencing the contribution per ton of cargo. Consequently, by focusing on berth occupancy revenue per TEU, port management can identify strategic actions to enhance financial viability and effectively measure the efficiency of port performance [70].

Customer dimension: Ten PPIs were accepted. Among these, the accuracy of documents/information achieved the highest ranking. The completeness of documentation prepared by the shipper during the initial processing stage is a critical determinant of subsequent document processing time, which can significantly impact vessel waiting times at the port or dock [71]. Furthermore, the establishment of a reliable information network is crucial for ensuring the promptness of port authority responses to service-related issues [61].

Productivity dimension: There were 21 PPIs accepted and 1 rejected. The PPI that was rejected was transportation cost per cargo. The highest-ranking PPI in the productivity dimension was vessel turnaround time. Vessel turnaround time (VTT) is one of the main performance measures of the Colombo Port as a transshipment hub port to improve competitiveness in the transshipment business in the Asian region [72]. Vessel operations (avg. turnaround time, avg. vessel calls, etc.) are factors that affect port efficiency. It is based on benchmarking results from four seaports (Tanger Med, Algeciras Bay, Rotterdam, and New York–New Jersey) [73]. In brief, it is essential to use vessel turnaround as a key port performance metric. Thus, the port can be more efficient and increase its competitiveness.

Learning and growth dimension: 12 PPIs were accepted, with only one rejected. The highest-ranking PPI in this dimension was teamwork, recognized as a critical indicator within this domain [24]. This was followed in rank by leadership, capabilities, knowledge and skills, also culture, respectively. Meanwhile, the commitment and loyalty indicator was rejected due to its primary focus on employee perspectives, rendering it somewhat tangential to the broader organizational-level PPIs being assessed.

5. Conclusions

This study addressed the challenges faced by smaller Indonesian ports (Section 1) through the development of a comprehensive suite of port performance indicators (PPIs). By integrating internal (balanced scorecard—BSC) and external (PESTLE) analytical frameworks (Section 2) and employing a rigorous three-round Delphi methodology to elicit and synthesize expert consensus (Section 3 and Section 4), this research yielded a validated set of PPIs tailored to the specific context of Indonesian state-owned service ports.

The primary objective of this endeavor was to establish a robust framework for enhancing performance monitoring, ensuring operational efficiency, and supporting strategic decision making within these vital maritime hubs. The study’s innovative approach combined internal organizational considerations with broader external environmental dynamics, drawing upon the strengths of the BSC, PESTLE analysis, and the principles of smart and green ports to construct a holistic performance evaluation instrument. The Delphi process, engaging a diverse panel of experts from academia, consultancy, port authorities, and customer segments, proved instrumental in identifying, refining, and achieving consensus on the most pertinent PPIs through a structured iterative process encompassing literature-informed initial indicators (n = 112), expert augmentation (totaling 127 PPIs), quantitative evaluation and feedback (Round 2—acceptance of 55 PPIs), and a final consensus-building stage (Round 3—acceptance of 114 PPIs from 11 valid responses).

The findings compellingly demonstrate the efficacy of integrating multi-dimensional assessment frameworks to generate robust and contextually relevant port performance metrics. The validated PPIs provide Indonesian port authorities with a clear, structured, and actionable approach to measuring performance across critical dimensions, including financial, operational, environmental, and strategic aspects. The incorporation of sustainability principles within this framework underscores its relevance in supporting efforts to enhance operational efficiency, maintain global competitiveness, and align with evolving environmental imperatives. To facilitate the practical application of these findings, a final integrated model (Figure 2) was developed. This model strategically synthesizes the BSC, PESTLE analysis, and smart and green Port concepts, effectively linking internal organizational factors with external environmental influences through the validated indicators, thereby offering a holistic and readily applicable structure for managing and optimizing port performance.

Managerial implications: This research offers a practically applicable and empirically validated framework, embodied in the integrated model presented in Figure 2, empowering Indonesian port authorities to strategically identify, implement, and monitor key performance indicators. This framework provides a robust tool for comprehensive performance measurement, encompassing crucial aspects, such as customer satisfaction, and facilitates informed strategic decision-making.

Limitations: The applicability of the developed PPIs is primarily circumscribed to the specific context of state-owned service ports within Indonesia, characterized by a unified ownership structure encompassing all assets. This unique operational and ownership model may limit the direct transferability of these findings to privately-owned or concessioned ports operating under different structural paradigms. Furthermore, the marginal attrition in expert participation during the final Delphi round (n = 11, compared to 12 in previous rounds) is acknowledged as a potential, albeit likely minor, source of bias.

Future research directions: Future studies could examine the practical implementation and longitudinal impact of this framework across diverse Indonesian ports and assess its adaptability to varying port sizes and regions under different economic, regulatory, and environmental conditions. Integrating real-time data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) for enhanced performance monitoring also warrants investigation.