Difference between revisions of "Improved Decisions for Ocean FreightsAnalysis"
Mmphang.2012 (talk | contribs) |
Mmphang.2012 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
| Line 63: | Line 62: | ||
We can see from the graph above that 5 out of 6 industries underutilize the containers when dangerous goods are involved. However, we also realized that there are only 142 records of dangerous goods available, as compared to 82,649 records of non-dangerous goods. Due to the vast difference in numbers, we are not able to say with certainty that the danger level of the goods affects the ultimate container choice. | We can see from the graph above that 5 out of 6 industries underutilize the containers when dangerous goods are involved. However, we also realized that there are only 142 records of dangerous goods available, as compared to 82,649 records of non-dangerous goods. Due to the vast difference in numbers, we are not able to say with certainty that the danger level of the goods affects the ultimate container choice. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br /> | ||
| + | {| style="background-color:#ffffff; width:80%; font-family:Century Gothic; font-size:15px; margin: 3px auto 0 auto;" | | ||
| + | | style="background-color:#006600; ; color:#ffffff; text-align: center; border-top:solid #ffffff; border-bottom:solid #ffffff; width:50%; " | | ||
| + | [[Improved_Decisions_for_Ocean_Freights|<span style="color:#ffffff"><strong>Underutilization could possibly be due to danger of goods involved</strong></span>]] | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |<br><center>[[File:AverageUtilizationByIndustry.jpg|600px]]</center> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br>In the first part of our dashboard we provide first of all, an overall control via the use of an overview based on Industry. This analysis aims to help narrow down the focus to specific industries instead of tackling all of them at once. The impact of which might not be as large now because of the number of companies that we have, however in the event of more than a few companies, this drill down will provide more clarity in analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Out of the 6 industries, it becomes apparent that, in the order of lowest utilization of FCL are: | ||
| + | :<li>Engineering | ||
| + | :<li>Technology | ||
| + | :<li>Energy | ||
| + | |||
| + | As such, we would suggest focusing on Engineering companies first. | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 14:40, 30 September 2015
|
No clear relationship between shipper country and utilization rate |
 We see from the graph on the left that shipments originating from Chile, Singapore and the United States have the lowest utilization rates. However, we see from the graph on the right that shipments originating from Fiji, Italy and Estonia have the lowest utilization rates. As such, we are unable to see a clear relationship between the shipper country and utilization rates. |
|
No clear relationship between consignee country and utilization rate |
 With the same X-axis and Y-axis, that is Consignee Country and Average Percentage Utilization, we realise that are no similar trends between the 2 graphs of different industries (auto industry and engineering industry).
|
|
Underutilization could possibly be due to danger of goods involved |
 We attempted to analyse if the danger level of the goods affected the choice of container.
We can see from the graph above that 5 out of 6 industries underutilize the containers when dangerous goods are involved. However, we also realized that there are only 142 records of dangerous goods available, as compared to 82,649 records of non-dangerous goods. Due to the vast difference in numbers, we are not able to say with certainty that the danger level of the goods affects the ultimate container choice. |
|
Underutilization could possibly be due to danger of goods involved |
Out of the 6 industries, it becomes apparent that, in the order of lowest utilization of FCL are:
As such, we would suggest focusing on Engineering companies first. |
