Difference between revisions of "Improved Decisions for Ocean FreightsAnalysis"
Mmphang.2012 (talk | contribs) |
Mmphang.2012 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
{| style="background-color:#ffffff; width:80%; font-family:Century Gothic; font-size:15px; margin: 3px auto 0 auto;" | | {| 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%; " | | | 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> | + | [[Improved_Decisions_for_Ocean_Freights|<span style="color:#ffffff"><strong>Breakdown of average utilization by Industries for FCL and LCL</strong></span>]] |
|- | |- | ||
|<br><center>[[File:AverageUtilizationByIndustry.jpg|600px]]</center> | |<br><center>[[File:AverageUtilizationByIndustry.jpg|600px]]</center> | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
As such, we would suggest focusing on Engineering companies first. | As such, we would suggest focusing on Engineering companies first. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | <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>Percentage of total transactions against average percentage utilization of Engineering Companies using FCL</strong></span>]] | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |<br><center>[[File:TotalTransactionsAverageUtilizationEngineeringFCL.png|600px]]</center> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br>The second part of our analysis is the cumulative distribution graph. With this analysis, we want to help identify which company is the one that should be of greatest concern here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The cumulative distribution graph shows us the percentage of transactions of a company that is below a certain utilization rate. For example in the above graph, the red company is of greater concern as a high proportion of their transactions have low utilization rates. | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 15:04, 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. |
Breakdown of average utilization by Industries for FCL and LCL |
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. |