Improved Decisions for Ocean FreightsAnalysis

Home

Project Management

Documentation

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

ANALYSIS

Learning Outcome

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). From the 2 graphs, we have come to the conclusion that neither shipper country nor consignee country has a big impact on the utilization rates.

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. The areas we looked into were: Percentage utilization by industry Sum of transactions by industry, company to determine the significance of this factor 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

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: Engineering Technology Energy As such, we would suggest focusing on Engineering companies first.

Percentage of total transactions against average percentage utilization of Engineering Companies using FCL

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.

Time Series Percent Utilization

For the top graph, some anomalies in the data are revealed and also implies wrong data around the month of June in 2013 and 2014 where percentage reached 400%, 3 times more than the limit of percentage utilization. To remove that dataset, we put a constraint on the axis such that only percentages between 0% and 100%, as can be seen in the bottom graph.

Carbon Emissions

Trade Lanes Profiling

Stacked Bar Charts

Boxplots

Cost Treemap

FCL/LCL Cost Comparisons

Dashboard Design

Imagine 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: Customer Profiling Trade Lanes Analysis 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.