Microsoft Office Tutorials and References
In Depth Information
Table 6.10 Reported missing reefers for terminals
Monthly obs.
NY/NJ
Amsterdam
Singapore
Security system
1
24
21
12
A
2
34
12
6
A
3
12
34
8
A
4
23
11
9
A
5
7
18
11
A
6
29
28
3
A
8
18
21
21
A
9
31
25
19
A
10
25
23
6
A
11
23
19
18
A
12
32
40
11
A
13
18
21
4
B
14
27
16
7
B
15
21
17
17
B
16
14
18
21
B
17
6
15
9
B
18
15
7
10
B
19
9
9
3
B
20
12
10
6
B
21
15
19
15
B
22
8
11
9
B
23
12
9
13
B
24
17
13
4
B
Average
=
18.78
18.13
10.52
Std =
8.37
8.15
5.66
Note: Month 7 is missing
available for their manufacture. The terminals have similar security systems at all
three locations and they were all updated one year ago. Therefore, the ﬁrm assumes
the average number of missing containers at all the terminals should be relatively
similar over time. The ﬁrm collects data over 23 months at the three locations to
determine if the monthly means of lost and stolen reefers at the various sites are
signiﬁcantly different. The data for reefer theft and loss is shown in Table 6.10.
The data in Table 6.10 is in terms of reefers missing per month and represents
a total of 23 months of collected data. A casual inspection of the data reveals that
the average of missing reefers for Singapore is substantially lower than the aver-
ages for Amsterdam and NY/NJ. Also, note that the data includes an additional
data element the security system in place during the month. Security system A
was replaced with system B in the beginning of the second year. In our ﬁrst analy-
sis of a single factor, we will only consider the Port factor with 3 levels NY/NJ,
Amsterdam, and Singapore. This factor is the independent variable and the number
of missing reefers is the response, or dependent variable. It also is possible to con-
sider the security system later as an additional factor with two levels, A and B. Here
is our ﬁrst question of interest.

Search JabSto ::

Custom Search