Difference between revisions of "Improved Decisions for Ocean FreightsAnalysis"
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
|<br><center>[[File:DashboardDesign.png|800px]]</center> | |<br><center>[[File:DashboardDesign.png|800px]]</center> | ||
− | + | This is the screenshot of our dashboard for the interims. During the interims, we imagined the dashboard to be in the form of a set of questions where each page will provide a suggestion for the answer to each question, then there would be three pages to the dashboard: | |
:<li>Customer Profiling | :<li>Customer Profiling | ||
:<li>Trade Lanes Analysis | :<li>Trade Lanes Analysis | ||
:<li>What-If Analysis | :<li>What-If Analysis | ||
On each page of the dashboard, there will be a series of visualisations which will each provide a unique insight that are interrelated to provide the answer to the question. The above diagram depicts how we visualize how the various insights (Customer Profile) are interrelated. | On each page of the dashboard, there will be a series of visualisations which will each provide a unique insight that are interrelated to provide the answer to the question. The above diagram depicts how we visualize how the various insights (Customer Profile) are interrelated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Our final dashboard still has the same philosophy, just that we have removed the What-If Analysis page as we felt it would not provide effective insights. Here are screenshots of our final dashboards: <br/> | ||
+ | <br><center>[[File:Dashboard1.PNG|600px]]</center> | ||
+ | <br><center>[[File:Dashboard22.PNG|600px]]</center> | ||
+ | <br><center>[[File:Dashboard3.PNG|600px]]</center> | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 19:48, 16 November 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. |
We also provide box plots to complement the cumulative distribution graphs so that the distribution can be better understood.
|
In this visualization, the different colours represent the different trade routes and the size of the boxes indicate the total cost of all the transactions in that trade route for a specific company.
|