# Resource Capacity Requirement for Multi-Terminal Cooperation in Container Ports
## 4 Managerial Insights
### Analysis on Interaction Effects  
A two-factor ANOVA with replications is applied to examine the effect of trans-shipment and transferring rates on capacity requirement of QC intensity (Table 3), storage space requirement (Table 4), and gate congestion (Table 5). The p-values reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis and conclude that the difference in trans-shipment rates has an effect on the QC intensity, storage space requirement, and gate congestion at the 95% significant level. The same applies for the transferring rates and the interaction effect of trans-shipment and transferring rates. Figure 12: Changes of gate congestion requirement for trans-shipment and transferring levels. The ANOVA contrast determines whether there is a significant difference in levels of the QC intensity, the storage space requirement, and the gate congestion when the factor levels (i.e., transferring and trans-shipment rates) vary. The number of contrast coefficients is set to 2, and Bonferroni correction is applied when testing the significance between levels of a factor. Table 6 suggests statistical evidence towards the association between trans-shipment rates and storage space requirement, as well as trans-shipment rates and gate congestion. On the other hand, there is no significant difference in QC intensity in the case for trans-shipment rates of 90% and 85%. As explained earlier in Figure 11, the higher levels of trans-shipment rate would trigger the higher volume of transferring containers, and hence the QC requirement is shared among the collaborating terminals. The rest of cases demonstrate that changes in trans-shipment rates have a significant effect on QC intensity, storage space requirement, and gate congestion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Sig.** \\ \hline Trans-shipment & 26.05 & 3.00 & 8.68 & 195.78 & \(4.58\times 10^{-108}\) & yes \\ Transferring & 4.62 & 1.00 & 4.62 & 104.24 & \(9.50\times 10^{-24}\) & yes \\ Interaction & 21.74 & 3.00 & 7.25 & 163.44 & \(2.35\times 10^{-92}\) & yes \\ Error & 70.60 & 1,592.00 & 0.04 & & \\ Total & 123.01 & 1,599.00 & 0.08 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Significance test among trans-shipment levels for QC intensity, storage space requirement, and gate congestion using contrasts at 5% significance level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **SS** & **df** & **MS** & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Sig.** \\ \hline Trans-shipment & 989,432,180,454.49 & 3 & 329,810,726,818.16 & 237,253.37 & 0 & yes \\ Transferring & 1,716,883,011.15 & 1 & 1,716,883,011.15 & 1,235.06 & \(9.21\times 10^{-201}\) & yes \\ Interaction & 30,685,348,400.53 & 3 & 10,228,449,466.84 & 7,357.96 & 0 & yes \\ Error & 2,213,071,537.21 & 1,592 & 1,390,120.31 & & & \\ Total & 1,024,047,483,403.38 & 1,599 & 640,429,945.84 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Two-factor ANOVA results for storage space requirement in 5% significance level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Sum of Square** & **Degree of** & **Mean Sum of** & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Significance** (Sig.)** \\ \hline Trans-shipment & 140.07 & 3 & 46.69 & 266.66 & \(3.22\times 10^{-140}\) & yes \\ Transferring & 23.03 & 1 & 23.03 & 131.53 & \(2.60\times 10^{-29}\) & yes \\ Interaction & 61.14 & 3 & 20.38 & 116.39 & \(3.82\times 10^{-68}\) & yes \\ Error & 278.75 & 1,592 & 0.18 & & \\ Total & 502.99 & 1,599 & 0.31 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Two-factor ANOVA results for QC intensity in 5% significance level.