P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter depicts the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data
gathered which were relevant to the study. The data were presented in tabular form
and analyzed to answer to the specific questions given in the statement of the
problem as indicated in Chapter 1.
1. Profile of the respondents
Table 1 presents the distribution of respondents according to age.
Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Respondents In Terms of Age
Age
20 - 25 yrs. old
26 - 30 yrs. old
31 - 35 yrs. old
36 - 40 yrs. old
41 - 45 yrs. old
46 yrs. old and above
Total

Frequency
36
18
5
0
5
6
70

Percentage (%)
51.43
25.71
7.14
0
7.14
8.57
100.0

Rank
1
2
4.5
6
4.5
3

Table 1 shows that 51.43% or 36 out of 70 respondents are from 25 years old
and below and ranked first. The age group from 26 up to 30 has a frequency of 18
or corresponded to 25.71% of the respondents and ranked second. The age bracket
from 46 years old and above has a frequency of 6 or corresponded to 8.57% of the
respondents and ranked third. The age bracket from 31 up to 35have a frequency of
5 or corresponded to 7.14% of the respondents and ranked 4.5. The age bracket

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
from 41 up to 45 have a frequency of 5 and corresponded to 7.14% of the
respondents and also ranked 4.5.

Table 2 presents the distribution of respondents according to sex.

Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Respondents In Terms of Sex
Sex
Male
Female
Total

Frequency
67
3
70

Percentage (%)
95.71
4.29
100.0

Rank
1
2

Table 2 shows that out of 70 respondents, 67 or 95.71% are male and ranked 1
while 3 or 4.29% are female and ranked second
Table 3 presents the distribution of respondents according to civil status.
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Respondents In Terms of Civil Status
Civil Status
Single
Married
Total

Frequency
44
26
70

Percentage (%)
62.86
37.14
100.0

Rank
1
2

Table 3 shows that out of 70 respondents, 44 or 62.86% are single and ranked
first while 26 or 37.14% are married and ranked second.

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
Table 4 presents the distribution of respondents according to departments.
Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents
In Terms of Department
Position in the Company
IT Operations
Deck Department
Shipping Operations
Engine Department
Total

Frequency
7
8
51
4
70

Percentage (%)
10
11.43
72.86
5.71
100.0

Rank
3
2
1
4

Table 4 shows that out of 70 respondents that 51 or 72.86% are from the
Shipping Operations and ranked first; 8 or 11.43% are from the Deck Department
and ranked second; 7 or 10% are from IT Operations and ranked third. The 4 or
5.71% are from Engine Department and ranked fourth.
Table 5 presents the distribution of respondents according to number of years
employed.
Table 5 shows that out of 70 respondents, 33 or 47.14% are from below 3
years employed and ranked first; 21 or 30% are from 3 up to 5 years employed and
ranked second; 11 or 15.71% are more than 8 years employed and ranked third; and
5 or 7.14% are from 6 to 8 years employed and ranked fourth.
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents
In Terms of Years Employed
Years Employed
Below 3 years
3 to 5 years

Frequency
33
21

Percentage (%)
47.14
30.0

Rank
1
2

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
6 to 8 years
More than 8 years
Total

5
11
70

7.14
15.71
100.0

4
3

Table 6 represents the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on review of

cargo plan of the companys shipping operations
Table 6
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Evaluation Regarding Review on
Cargo Plan
Cargo Plan

Weighted
Mean

Cargo plan is interpreted to determine required cargo operations

Characteristics of cargo being transported are identified and the type, severity
and impact of the hazard posed by cargo on safety, the environment, vessel
operations and personnel are established
Cargo plan is evaluated to ensure regulations relating to hazardous
materials/dangerous goods are observed
Cargo plan is assessed to ensure incompatible cargo stowage is avoided

4.09

Cargo plan is checked to ensure unloading sequence is effective

4.26

Overall Weighted Mean

4.09
4.28
4.36

VI
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O

4.28

V
O
Legend: A Always (4.51-5.00), VO Very Often (3.51-4.50), O Often(2.51-3.50), S
Sometimes (1.51-2.50), N Never (1.00-1.50), VI Verbal Interpretation

Table 6 shows the weighted mean and verbal interpretation of the evaluation on
the companys shipping operations. The respondents evaluated that the most
observed procedure is the assessment of cargo plan to ensure incompatible
stowage is avoided with a weighted mean of 4.36. The second most observed
procedure is the evaluation of cargo plan to ensure regulations relating to hazardous
materials/dangerous goods are observed with a weighted mean of 4.28. The third
most observed procedure is checking the cargo plan to ensure unloading sequence

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
is effective with a weighted mean of 4.26. The least observed procedure is
interpreting the cargo plan to determine required cargo operations and the
characteristics of cargo being transported are identified and the type, severity and
impact of the hazard posed by cargo on safety, the environment, vessel operations
and personnel are established. The overall weighted mean of 4.28 means that the
company personnel reviews the cargo plan very often.

Table 7 represents the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on preparation

for loading of the companys shipping operations.
Table 7 shows the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on preparation for
loading. Data results show that all under this operation are observed very often as it
got an overall weighted mean of 4.22. Identification and confirmation of ballast
discharge plan and undertaking of appropriate actions to support this plan had the
highest rating of 4.34. Checking of holds to ensure they are clean, dry, and free of
smell and verification of safety arrangements to ensure they are operational both got
a high rating of 4.23. Monitoring of preparations for loading according to stowage
plan and organizational procedures had the third highest rating of 4.21. Next came
protection of bilge suctions before loading with a rating of 4.2. Reviewing of supplies
of cargo protection and securing of material to ensure there are sufficient available
pertinent documents and other evidences had a rating of 4.17. Lastly, ensuring
cargo is correctly identified, inspected, and confirmed against documentation

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
through checks got the lowest rating of 4.16. This means that it was give the least
importance by the personnel of the company
Table 7
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Evaluation Regarding Preparation
for Loading
Prepare for Loading
Weighted Mean
VI
Holds are checked to ensure they are clean, dry and free of
4.23
VO
smell
Safety arrangements are verified to ensure they are
4.23
VO
operational
Supplies
of cargo protection and securing material are
reviewed to ensure there are sufficient available pertinent
4.17
VO
documents and other evidences.
Bilge suctions are protected before loading
4.2
VO
Checks are made to ensure cargo is correctly identified,
4.16
VO
inspected and confirmed against documentation
Preparations for loading are monitored according to stowage
4.21
VO
plan and organizational procedures
Ballast discharge plan is identified and confirmed and
4.34
VO
appropriate actions to support this plan are undertaken
Overall Weighted Mean
4.22
VO
Legend: A Always (4.51-5.00), VO Very Often (3.51-4.50), O Often(2.51-3.50), S
Sometimes (1.51-2.50), N Never (1.00-1.50), VI Verbal Interpretation

Table 8 represents the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on supervision

of loading/unloading of cargo of the companys shipping operations.
As shown in Table 8, supervision of loading/unloading of cargo has overall
weighted mean of 4.25 which means the company personnel supervise loading and
unloading of cargo very often.
Table 8
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Evaluation Regarding Supervision
of Loading/ Unloading of Cargo

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
Supervise Loading/ Unloading Of Cargo
Weighted
Mean
Instructions are given to crew and stevedores involved in cargo
4.23
loading/unloading according to cargo stowage plan
Compliance with regulations, procedures and instructions pertaining to
4.27
type of cargo being handled is managed during loading/unloading
operations
Loading/unloading is monitored to ensure loading rate is not exceeded
4.27
Vessel stability is observed during loading/unloading operations
4.26
Loading/unloading operations are checked against cargo plan
4.29
Cargo is secured according to cargo plan
4.23
Cargo handling documentation is completed according to organizational
4.26
procedures and regulatory requirements
Transfer of cargo is monitored to prevent hazards
4.21
Gas monitoring equipment is regularly inspected and used according to
4.2
organizational procedures, as required
Overall Weighted Mean
4.25
Legend: A Always (4.51-5.00), VO Very Often (3.51-4.50), O Often(2.51-3.50),
Sometimes (1.51-2.50), N Never (1.00-1.50), VI Verbal Interpretation

VI
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
SO

The table also shows that the highest observed procedure in supervising
loading/unloading of cargo is checking loading/unloading operations against the
cargo plan (4.29). The second observed procedure in supervising loading/unloading
of cargo has weighted mean of 4.27 which comprises of management of compliance
with regulations, procedures, and instructions pertaining to type of cargo being
handled and monitoring of loading/unloading to ensure loading rate is not exceeded.
The following had a rate of 4.26: observation of vessel stability during
loading/unloading operations; and completion of cargo handling documentation
according to organizational procedures and regulatory requirements. Instructions to
crew and stevedores involved in cargo loading/unloading according to cargo
stowage plan and security of cargo according to cargo plan both had a rating of
4.23. Monitoring of transfer of cargo to prevent hazards got a rating of 4.21. The

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
least observed procedure is regular inspection and use of gas monitoring equipment
according to organizational procedures as required with a rating of 4.20.

Table 9 represents the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on monitor

care of cargo during voyage of the companys shipping operations.
Table 9
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Evaluation Regarding Monitor
Care of Cargo during Voyage
Monitor Care Of Cargo during Voyage
Weighted Mean
VI
Plan for care of cargo during voyage is implemented
4.17
VO
according
organizational
and systems
customerare
requirements,
Ventilationto
and
humidity control
checked and
4.13
VO
Actions required to maintain the safety and security of cargo
during the voyage are initiated according to customer
4.11
VO
requirements and organizational procedures
Compliance with safety and hazard minimization procedures
and regulations related to cargo care is managed at all times
4.23
VO
during the voyage to maintain the safety of personnel, cargo
and vessel
Safety procedures are followed and appropriate action is
4.29
VO
taken when defects or damage to cargo are detected
Overall Weighted Mean
4.19
VO
Legend: A Always (4.51-5.00), VO Very Often (3.51-4.50), O Often(2.51-3.50), S
Sometimes (1.51-2.50), N Never (1.00-1.50), VI Verbal Interpretation

Table 9 shows that the most observed procedure regarding monitor care of
cargo during voyage is following the safety

procedures and taking appropriate

action when defects or damage to cargo are detected with the highest weighted
mean of 4.29. The second most observed procedure is managing the compliance
with safety and hazard minimization procedures and regulations related to at all
times to maintain the safety of personnel, cargo and vessel with the weighted mean

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
of 4.23. The third most observed procedure is implementing the plan for care of
cargo during voyage according to organizational and customer requirements and
relevant regulations with a weighted mean of 4.17. The fourth most observed
procedure is checking the ventilation and humidity control systems with a weighted
mean of 4.13. The least observed procedure is initiating the actions required to
maintain the safety and security of cargo during the voyage according to customer
requirements and organizational procedures with the lowest weighted mean of 4.11.
This means that with an overall weighted mean of 4.19, the company personnel
monitor care of cargo during voyage very often.

Table 10 represents the weighted mean and verbal interpretation on taking

precautions to prevent pollution of the environment of the companys shipping
operations.
Table 10 shows that in taking precautions to prevent pollution a of the
environment reporting all relevant information o appropriate persons when a vapor
leak or cloud is detected or a malfunction has occurred is highly observed having a
weighted mean of (4.26). The second most observed procedure is notifying the
shore-based response personnel when a vapor leak or cloud occurs (4.24).
Procedure to prevent pollution is the third most observed procedure having a
weighted mean of 4.23. The least observed procedure having a weighted mean of
4.14 is applying according to regulatory requirements and organizational procedures
the measures to prevent pollution during normal and emergency situations. This

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
means that the company takes precautions o prevent pollution of the environment
very often, having an overall weighted mean of 4.22.
Table 10
Weighted Mean and Verbal Interpretation on Evaluation on Taking Precautions
to Prevent Pollution of the Environment
Take Precautions to Prevent Pollution of the
Weighted Mean
VI
Environment
Procedures to prevent pollution
are identified and observed
4.23
VO
at all times
Measures to prevent pollution during normal and emergency
situations are applied according to regulatory requirements
4.14
VO
and organizational procedures.
All relevant information is immediately reported to
appropriate persons when a vapor leak or cloud is detected
4.26
VO
or a malfunction has occurred that poses a risk of a vapor
leak or cloud
Shore-based response personnel are promptly notified when
4.24
VO
a vapor leak or cloud occurs
Overall Weighted Mean
4.22
VO
Legend: A Always (4.51-5.00), VO Very Often (3.51-4.50), O Often(2.51-3.50), S
Sometimes (1.51-2.50), N Never (1.00-1.50), VI Verbal Interpretation

Table 11 represents the significant difference on respondents evaluation of the

companys shipping operations when grouped according to Age.
Table 11 shows that there is no significant difference between respondents
evaluation of companys shipping operations regarding review of cargo plan when
grouped according to age with p (0.66) > 0.05. On the other hand, it also reveals that
there is significant difference between the companys shipping operations regarding
preparing for loading with p (0.25) < 0.05, supervise loading/unloading of cargo with
p (0.001) < 0.05, monitor care of cargo during voyage with p (.011) < 0.05 and taking

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
precautions to prevent pollution to the environment with p (0.019) when grouped
according to age.
Table 11
Significant Difference on Respondents Evaluation of the Companys Shipping
Operations When Grouped According to Age
F
pAge
Mean
Decision
Remarks
value
value
20 to 25 yrs. old
4.35
26 to 30 yrs. old
4.13
Review Cargo
Accept
Not
31 to 35 yrs. old
3.44
2.326
.066
Plan
Ho
Significant
36 to 40 yrs. old
4.60
46 yrs. old and
4.20
above
20 to 25 yrs. old
4.36
26 to 30 yrs. old
4.03
Prepare for
31 to 35 yrs. old
3.49
2.978
.025
Reject Ho
Significant
Loading
36 to 40 yrs. old
4.60
46 yrs. old and
4.33
above
20 to 25 yrs. old
4.43
Supervise
26 to 30 yrs. old
4.12
Loading/
31 to 35 yrs. old
3.40
5.641
.001
Reject Ho
Significant
Unloading Of
36
to
40
yrs.
old
4.56
Cargo
46 yrs. old and
4.04
above
20
to 25 yrs. old
4.41
26 to 30 yrs. old
4.11
Monitor Care Of
Cargo during
31 to 35 yrs. old
3.36
3.555
.011
Reject Ho
Significant
Voyage
36 to 40 yrs. old
4.20
46 yrs. old and
4.00
above
20 to 25 yrs. old
4.42
Taking
26 to 30 yrs. old
4.14
Precautions to
Prevent Pollution
31 to 35 yrs. old
3.40
3.183
.019
Reject Ho
Significant
of the
36 to 40 yrs. old
4.20
Environment
46 yrs. old and
4.00
above
Note: If p value is less than the level of significance which is 0.05 reject the null hypothesis otherwise
Indicators

accept.

Table 12 represents the significant difference on respondents evaluation of the

companys shipping operations if they are grouped according to sex.

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
Table 12
Significant Difference on Respondents Evaluation of the Companys Shipping
Operations When Grouped According to Sex
Mea
tpSex
Decision
Remarks
n
value
value
Male
4.23
Review Cargo Plan
2.605
.011
Reject Ho
Significant
Femal
4.00
e
Male
4.22
Accept
Not
Prepare for Loading
.560
.577
Ho
Significant
Femal
4.00
e
Male
4.25
Supervise Loading/ Unloading Of
3.523
.001
Reject Ho
Significant
Cargo
Femal
4.00
e
Male
4.21
Monitor Care Of Cargo during
2.501
.015
Reject Ho
Significant
Voyage
Femal
4.00
e
Male
4.22
Taking Precautions to Prevent
2.643
.010
Reject Ho
Significant
Pollution of the Environment
Femal
4.00
Note: If p value is less than the level ofesignificance which is 0.05 reject the null hypothesis otherwise
Indicators

accept.

Table 12 shows that there is no significant difference between respondents

evaluation of companys shipping operations regarding prepare for loading when
grouped according to sex with p (0.577) > 0.05. On the other hand, it also reveals
that there is significant difference between the companies shipping operations
regarding review cargo plan with p (0.11) < 0.05, supervise loading/unloading of
cargo with p (0.001) < 0.05, monitor care of cargo during voyage with p (.015) < 0.05
and taking precautions to prevent pollution to the environment with p (0.010) when
grouped according to sex.

Table 13 represents the significant difference on respondents evaluation on the

companys shipping operations if they are grouped according to civil status.
Table 13

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
Significant Difference on Respondents Evaluation of the Companys Shipping
Operations When Grouped According to Civil Status
Indicators

Civil
Status
Single

Mea
n

Married

4.15

Single

4.28

Prepare for Loading

Monitor Care Of Cargo during

Voyage

Taking Precautions to Prevent

Pollution of the Environment

pvalue

Decision

Remarks

.685

.496

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

.996

.323

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

1.910

.060

Accept
Ho

Not
Significant

2.039

.045

Reject Ho

Significant

2.697

.009

Reject Ho

Significant

4.27

Review Cargo Plan

Supervise Loading/ Unloading

Of Cargo

tvalue

Married

4.11

Single

4.34

Married

4.07

Single

4.32

Married

3.99

Single

4.37

Married

3.94

Note: If p value is less than the level of significance which is 0.05 reject the null hypothesis otherwise
accept.

Table 13 shows that there is no significant difference between respondents

evaluation of companys shipping operations regarding review of cargo plan with p
(0.496) > 0.05, prepare for loading with p (.323) > 0.05 and supervise loading /
unloading of cargo with p (0.60) > 0.05 when grouped according to civil status. On
the other hand, it also reveals that there is significant difference between the
companys shipping operations regarding monitor care of cargo during voyage with p
(.045) < 0.05 and taking precautions to prevent pollution of the environment with p
(.009) < 0.05 when grouped according to civil status.

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S

Table 14 shows the significant difference on respondents evaluation on the

companys shipping operations if they are grouped according to Department.
Table 14
Significant Difference on Respondents Evaluation of the Companys Shipping
Operations When Grouped According to Department
Indicators

Department
Mean
f-value
p-value
Decision
Remarks
Operations/ IT
4.6
Deck
4.35
Review Cargo
3.875
.013
Reject Ho
Significant
Plan
Shipping
4.23
Engine
3.2
Operations/ IT
4.61
Deck
4.38
Prepare for
5.103
.003
Reject Ho
Significant
Loading
Shipping
4.22
Engine
3.14
Operations/ IT
4.73
Supervise
Deck
4.38
Loading/
4.497
.006
Reject Ho
Significant
Unloading Of
Shipping
4.20
Cargo
Engine
3.56
Operations/ IT
4.69
Monitor Care
Deck
4.38
Of Cargo
5.377
.002
Reject Ho
Significant
Shipping
4.18
during Voyage
Engine
3.2
Taking
Operations/ IT
4.71
Precautions to
Deck
4.38
4.993
.004
Reject Ho
Significant
Prevent
Shipping
4.19
Pollution of the
Engine
3.25
Environment
Note: If p value is less than the level of significance which is 0.05 reject the null hypothesis otherwise
accept.

Table 14 shows that there is a significant difference with the companys

shipping operations when grouped according to department. With p(.013) < 0.05 on
Review of cargo plan, p(0.003) < 0.05 on Preparing for Loading, p(.006) < 0.05 on
Supervision of Loading and Unloading of Cargo, p(.002) < 0.05 on the Monitor care

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
of Cargo during voyage, and p(.004) < 0.05 on Taking Precautions to prevent
Pollution of the Environment. It can be concluded that when grouped by department,
there is some relation with the companys management of shipping operations.

Table 15 represents the significant difference on respondents evaluation on the

companys shipping operations if they are grouped according to number years
employed in the company.
Table 15 reveals that there is a significant difference between the companys
shipping operations and the years employed of the personnel. With p(.047) < 0.05
on Review of cargo plan, p(0.013) < 0.05 on Preparing for Loading, p(.001) < 0.05
on Supervision of Loading and Unloading of Cargo, p(.005) < 0.05 on the Monitor
care of Cargo during voyage, and p(.009) < 0.05 on taking precautions to prevent
pollution of the environment. It can be concluded that when grouped according to
number of years employed by the personnel, there is some relation with the
companys management of shipping operations.

Table 15
Significant Difference on Respondents Evaluation of the Companys Shipping
Operations When Grouped according to Years Employed
Indicators

Number of
Years in

Mean

F value

pvalue

Decision

Remarks

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S
Present
Position
Below 3 years
4.35
3 to 5 years
4.13
Review Cargo Plan 6 to 8 years
2.800
0.047
Reject Ho
Significant
3.44
8 years and
4.38
above
Below 3 years
4.36
3 to 5 years
4.03
Prepare for Loading 6 to 8 years
3.843
0.013
Reject Ho
Significant
3.49
8 years and
4.45
above
Below 3 years
4.43
3 to 5 years
4.12
Supervise Loading/
6.376
0.001
Reject Ho
Significant
6
to
8
years
3.40
Unloading Of Cargo
8 years and
4.27
above
Below 3 years
4.41
3 to 5 years
4.11
Monitor Care Of
Cargo during
4.695
0.005
Reject Ho
Significant
6 to 8 years
3.36
Voyage
8 years and
4.09
above
Below 3 years
4.42
3 to 5 years
4.14
Taking Precautions
to Prevent Pollution 6 to 8 years
4.198
0.009
Reject Ho
Significant
3.40
of the Environment
8 years and
4.09
above
Note: If p value is less than the level of significance which is 0.05 reject the null hypothesis otherwise
accept.