An investigation of the impact of technology on the processing capacity of letters, small and

large parcels in Australia Post facilities.

Abstract. This study would examine the effect of technology on the processing ability of
messages, small and large parcels in Australia Post facilities for data comprehension purposes
and whether variables have any effect on each other. The information includes the date, year,
facility, letters, small parcels, and big parcels. 2 dependent groups, 2 independent groups and
more than 2 independent groups form the 3 primary fields to be investigated. Data for learning
changes over time will be plotted by bar graphs, and the Shapiro-Wilk test will validate
normality. This will allow us to determine whether to pick a parametric or non-parametric test to
search for statistical variations. These experiments will analyze major variations within each
dataset and the effects of data trends, patterns and findings will be addressed.
Keywords: independent groups, paired groups, p-value, testing hypothesis
1 Introduction
This report offers an analysis of the effect of technology on letters, small and large parcels in
Australia Post's processing capacity. Year, services, messages, small parcels and large parcels are
the data to be examined. Furthermore, data is broken down into 3 angles: 2 separate groups, 2
dependent groups and more than 2 separate groups. The reasons for the necessary collection, data
are gathered, normality tests are conducted and statistical tests are used to draw the conclusions.
Bar graphs are selected to display improvements over time and the Shapiro-Wilk test is selected
for normality validation. This in turn confirms whether parametric or non-parametric
experiments are conducted. Zero hypotheses and alternative hypotheses are described. This
discusses any major variations between classes. After various tests, inferences and reflections
will be identified.
2 Proving significant difference among 2 independent groups
Independent variable does not depend on remaining variables but relies on the remaining
variables. Year and region (Australia post-processing region: facility) will rely on this as they
decide independent variables. We can carry on with year and facility for 2 separate groups
because they don't rely on the remaining variables.
2.1 Plotting and explaining data

Fig. 1. A bar graph having year and facility in areas.

Bar graphs showing changes in region over time and year are shown in Figure 1 [4]. Figure 1
displays the year on the x axis, while the average result is on the y axis. There are 365 in each
region throughout both years, but the cumulative values are not shown in graphs. The findings
look identical overall. It can be concluded that in both years the facility was the same in all three
regions.
2.2 Discussing and validating use of non-parametric test
We now perform statistical inference techniques. Quantile-quantile plots can be used to prove the
normal existence of the data distribution.
Fig. 2. Quantile-Quantile plots ​
​
According to Figure 6, points do not form a line that is approximately straight, signalling non-
normal distribution. We will conduct Shapiro Wilk data normality checking. Null hypothesis,
whereas alternative hypotheses are that the sample does not follow a normal distribution. The
sample follows the normal distribution. In both measures, p-value < 0.05 is as per Table 1. Thus,
zero hypotheses may be dismissed, and non-parametric tests can be used because data is not
distributed normally.

Table 1: Shapiro-Wilk test for testing normality

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Year .341 2190 .000 .637 2190 .000
Australia Post processing .223 2190 .000 .793 2190 .000
area
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

2.3 Discussion over results

As the data is distributed normally and there are two different samples[1]. The test is performed
to determine sample equality in the same population. Null hypotheses suggest a considerable
difference and alternative hypotheses suggest that in places there is a difference. Finally, there is
a huge difference between the two distinct parties.
3 Proving significant difference among 2 dependent groups
The variable depends on the remaining variables and small and large parcels are dependent on
our results. A change in the independent variable affects them. We may carry out small and large
parcels for two dependent groups because they do not depend on the remaining variables.
3.1 Plotting and explaining data

Fig. 3. A stem leaf plot having all terms.

Stem leafs can show changes over time and parcels average size results by term are plotted in
Figure 3 with Term [4]. There are 2190 parcels every term.
3.2 Discussing and validating use of non-parametric test
Q-Q plots of term results are executed to ascertain distribution nature of data [2].
Fig. 4. Quantile-Quantile plots for small and large parcels
According to Figure 6, points do not form a line that is approximately straight, signalling non-
normal distribution. We will run Shapiro Wilk data normality test[5]. The null hypothesis is that
sample is normally distributed, while alternative hypothesis is that the sample is not distributed
normally. According to Table 3, the p-value in all experiments is less than 0.05. Thus, zero
hypotheses may be dismissed, and non-parametric tests can be used because data is not
distributed normally.
Table 3: For normality: Shapiro-Wilk test
Tests of Normality
a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Small Parcels .056 2190 .000 .968 2190 .000
Large Parcels .043 2190 .000 .985 2190 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

3.3 Discussion over results

Due to the normal distribution of the data, it represents two dependent samples [3]. The test is
carried out to decide if 2 samples of the same populations with the same distribution were
selected. Null hypothesis suggests a discrepancy in outcomes is observed and alternative
hypotheses state that there is a difference[5]. Table 4 shows that the p-value is less than 0.05,
meaning that the null hypothesis can be discarded. However, for other p-value checks it is also
less than 0.05 (< 0.0001), which guarantees the null hypothesis can be rejected. Finally, there is
an essential distinction between the two.

Proving significant difference among > 2 independent groups

The attribute relies not on the remaining variables. Small and large parcels may be picked when
decided accordingly. For 3 separate classes, messages, small and large parcels may be carried
forward because they do not rely on other variables.
4.1 Plotting and explaining data

Fig. 5. Bar map with a section for messages, tiny and (Tullamarine, Mascot, Brisbane)
Bar charts display improvements over time, and area results are shown in Figure 5 with letters,
large and small parcels while the y-axis averages[1]. In general , the results look similar,
particularly for all the letters.
4.2 Discussing and validating use of non-parametric test
Q-Q plots of the variables are executed to ascertain distribution nature of data.
Fig. 6. Quantile-Quantile plots for letters, small and large parcels
As seen in figure 6, the points are not a line roughly straight that shows that the quantities do not
derive from the normal distribution. We will run Shapiro Wilk data normality test[1]. The null
hypothesis is that the sample is naturally split, while the alternative hypothesis is that the sample
is not separated. According to Table 5, the p-value is below 0.05. Therefore null hypotheses may
be dismissed, and non-parametric tests can be employed as data are not distributed normally.
4.3 Discussion over results
Since the data is not distributed normally and represents three separate samples, Kruskal-Wallis
test can be performed [6]. The test is conducted to see if two or more samples come from the
same distribution. Null hypothesis indicates that the letters, small plots, and large parcels are
very different, and the alternative hypothesis notes that there is a difference[5]. Test findings in
Table 6 indicate that the p-value is smaller than 0.05 (0.00), meaning zero hypothesis is refused.
In conclusion, the three separate categories have a big difference: letters, small parcels, large
parcels.
Table 6: Kruskal-Wallis test for >2 independent samples

5 Inference and Conclusion

The study provides an overview of the effect of technology on the processing ability of letters,
large and small parcels in Australia Post. Years, time, services, letters, small parcels and large
parcels included data. The areas of research included: year and facility described as two separate
groups; small and large plots as > 2 individual groups and letters; small and large plots as two
dependent groups. All the results showed considerable results. Bar graphs are used over a time to
demonstrate shifts. For the verification of normal data distribution, Q-Q and Shapiro-Wilk tests
are used[2]. This leads us to choose non-parametric tests for all areas as data is not distributed
normally. Tests are carried out and findings are presented with assumptions. The study concludes
that all variables are substantially different. However, the consequence is substantial differences
between the details. In non-parametric tests for 2 races, a shortcoming was found with < 0.05
indicating stable results.

References
1. Dedecker, J. and Saulière, G.: The Mann–Whitney U-statistic for α-dependent sequenc-es.
Mathematical Methods of Statistics. 26(2), 111-133 (2017).
2. Hosseini, R. and Takemura, A.: An objective look at obtaining the plotting positions for QQ-
plots. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods. 45(16), 4716-4728 (2016).
3. Huang, L.F.: Adjusted Wilcoxon signed rank test tables for ratio of percen-tiles.
Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation. 46(7), 5763-5771 (2017).
4. Kelleher, C. and Wagener, T.: Ten Guidelines for Effective Data Visualisation in Scien-tific
Publications. In Environmental Modelling and Software, 822-827 (2011).
5. List, J.A., Shaikh, A.M. and Xu, Y.: Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental econom-ics.
Experimental Economics. 22(4), 773-793 (2019).
6. Richardson, J.T.: Kruskal–Wallis Test (2018).