Caribbean ports already measure productivity. The problem is that they do not always measure it in the same way. For shipping lines operating across several terminals, that makes comparison difficult and reduces the value of the data collected.
Two ports may report indicators carrying the same name while relying on different methods or operational contexts. The figures may appear comparable without describing exactly the same reality.
That gap was at the centre of discussions during the 29th Annual General Meeting of the Port Management Association of the Caribbean, held in Paramaribo, Suriname. The objective is not simply to collect more information, but to establish indicators that ports and shipping lines can understand and use in the same way.
For Darnell Barrett, Regional Operations Manager at Tropical Shipping and Chairman of PMAC’s AMC Port Efficiency Working Group, greater standardisation would allow port members and private-sector partners to speak a common operational language.
Barrett noted that individual ports already monitor productivity and other key performance indicators. Their different approaches, however, do not always give carriers a sufficiently consistent basis for comparison and informed decision-making.
“Data drive decisions.”
The statement is simple. Turning it into a regional operating principle will be more difficult.
Measuring productivity is not enough
An indicator becomes useful only when the people relying on it agree on what it represents.
Moves per hour emerged during the PMAC discussions as one of the measures that shipping lines would like to see applied more consistently across regional terminals. But the exchanges also showed why a single headline figure cannot describe the full performance of a port call.
One carrier representative described a terminal reaching the mid-20s in moves per hour during part of an operation before falling to five or seven. He argued that this inconsistency could delay the vessel’s departure, prevent empty containers from being reloaded and generate storage costs that may ultimately feed into the wider cost of serving the market.
The issue is therefore not only whether a terminal can achieve a strong handling rate at a particular moment. Shipping lines also need to understand whether that performance can be maintained throughout the operation.
A common KPI would require more than a shared title. In practice, ports and carriers would need to agree on the scope of the measurement, the method used to calculate it and the operational circumstances needed to interpret the result.
Without that common basis, two figures can look similar while reflecting different processes.
A common language, not a regional ranking
Standardisation could easily be interpreted as an attempt to place every Caribbean port in a single league table.
That would overlook the differences between regional terminals.
Some ports operate with shore-based cranes, while others depend on vessels equipped with their own gear. Infrastructure, volumes, labour arrangements, digital systems and national procedures also vary from one territory to another. These differences were explicitly raised during the conversation between ports and shipping lines.
A shared framework should not pretend that every port works under identical conditions. Its value would be to provide a clearer basis for explaining those differences.
For shipping lines, comparable information could support schedule planning, equipment allocation and more precise discussions with terminal managers.
For ports, the same data could help identify operational bottlenecks, monitor progress over time and support decisions on equipment, workforce development or infrastructure.
The purpose should therefore be improvement rather than public judgement.
Ports and carriers approach performance from different positions. Shipping lines must keep vessels moving through a regional network according to demanding schedules. Port managers must deliver those operations while dealing with local infrastructure, regulation, labour and service obligations.
Common KPIs cannot remove those differences. They can, however, provide a more objective starting point for discussing them.
That is the type of cooperation Barrett described when he called for port members and associate members to speak the same language. He linked the standardisation of data directly to the ability of carriers to make better-informed decisions.
Participation remains the first obstacle
PMAC’s Port Efficiency Working Group has begun trying to build that common foundation.
According to the associate members’ report delivered in Paramaribo, the group launched a port-efficiency survey in 2026 and began producing more tangible results. The associate members also asked PMAC to encourage the adoption of the KPIs discussed during the workshop and to secure more consistent participation from port representatives.
The immediate obstacle is the amount of usable information being returned.
The report indicated that the port-efficiency exercise was still receiving responses from only about 30% of those approached. By comparison, the port-digitalisation group had reportedly taken several years to reach a response rate of approximately 90%.
That difference exposes the practical difficulty behind regional standardisation.
A common framework cannot be developed solely by carriers, consultants or the region’s most active terminals. It needs enough participation to reflect ports of different sizes, operating models and levels of capacity.
A low response rate could result in indicators that work for a limited group but prove difficult to apply across the wider network. It also reduces the ability to determine whether an operational problem is isolated or shared by several ports.
The reasons for limited participation are not detailed in the available sources. Some ports may not currently collect all the requested information, while others may face practical or organisational constraints. Questions surrounding confidentiality and the future use of performance data may also have to be addressed as the work progresses.
Standardisation is therefore not only a technical exercise. It also depends on participation, trust and clear governance.
A six-month target for a common framework
During the discussion, PMAC Chairman Darwin Telemaque set a six-month target for operational managers and the Port Efficiency Working Group to formalise acceptable KPIs for vessel-to-port operations.
The proposed timetable included one month to organise the work, followed by five months of exchanges and refinement. Telemaque also encouraged the group to meet more frequently if necessary to produce a tangible result.
The target is ambitious, particularly when the current survey response remains limited. But it reflects a desire to move the debate from repeated observations towards a practical framework.
The first result would not necessarily need to be an extensive dashboard covering every aspect of port activity.
A more realistic starting point could be a limited set of indicators supported by:
- agreed definitions;
- clear methods of calculation;
- enough operational context to avoid misleading comparisons;
- and a testing phase involving ports and shipping lines.
The framework would also need to evolve. Port operations change as terminals acquire new equipment, introduce digital systems and adapt their processes.
The associate members’ report recommended placing supply-chain resilience and regional connectivity under the Port Efficiency Working Group led by Darnell Barrett, subject to PMAC’s consideration.
That recommendation would expand the discussion beyond the speed of cargo handling.
Port efficiency also concerns whether vessels can maintain their schedules, whether goods move reliably through the wider logistics chain and whether smaller Caribbean markets remain properly connected.
The data that brings ports and shipping lines together will therefore need to describe more than isolated moments of high productivity. It must help both sides understand the consistency, constraints and consequences of an entire operation.
Caribbean ports do not need identical terminals. They need sufficiently common measurements to recognise what is working, identify what is not and discuss the difference using evidence that both sides can understand.
