Carsharing Fleet Optimization - Revision history

Shcs00 at 15:53, 20 December 2021

2021-12-20T15:53:17Z

Shcs00: /* Optimization of the best scenario */

2021-12-20T15:52:38Z

‎Optimization of the best scenario

Shcs00 at 15:51, 20 December 2021

2021-12-20T15:51:58Z

Shcs00: /* Code */

2021-12-20T15:39:34Z

‎Code

Shcs00: /* Results */

2021-12-20T15:37:08Z

‎Results

Shcs00: /* Results */

2021-12-20T13:49:43Z

‎Results

Shcs00: /* Results */

2021-12-20T13:48:34Z

‎Results

Shcs00: /* Results */

2021-12-20T13:47:53Z

‎Results

Shcs00: /* Results */

2021-12-20T13:46:07Z

‎Results

Shcs00: Shcs00 moved page Carsharing-fleet-optimization to Carsharing Fleet Optimization

2021-12-20T13:35:19Z

Shcs00 moved page Carsharing-fleet-optimization to Carsharing Fleet Optimization

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 Two extreme scenarios were also tried: 4 cars (including one premium) with 1 maintainer and 10,000 cars (including 1,450 premium ones) with 5 maintainers for 1,000 users. In the first run, revenue barely exceeded expenditures, return of investments would take decades. In the second run, until the end of the quarter, revenue value did not even reach the value of expenditure.
 ==Optimization of the best scenario==
 Last runs of the simulation aimed to increase margin profit by decreasing number of maintainers and slightly increasing number of cars comparing to the best scenario (200 cars per 1,000 users). It turned out that even one maintainer is enough to perform routine maintenance of the fleet. Number of cars waiting for maintenance grew but the profit in the end increased. Graph of car statuses looks similar to what was shown before with a extra red ("need maintenance" status) cars. On the other hand, revenue now exceeds expenditures 2.5 times (comparing to 2 times with 5 maintainers). It means that return of investments may happen already in 1.5-2 years.

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 [[File:Car-statuses-1-maintainer.jpeg|250px|thumb|left|Car statuses over time with only 1 maintainer]]
-Last runs aimed to increase margin profit by decreasing number of maintainers and slightly increasing number of cars comparing to the best scenario (200 cars per 1,000 users). It turned out that even one maintainer is enough to perform routine maintenance of the fleet. Number of cars waiting for maintenance grew but the profit in the end increased. Graph of car statuses looks similar to what was shown before with a extra red ("need maintenance" status) cars. On the other hand, revenue now exceeds expenditures 2.5 times (comparing to 2 times with 5 maintainers). It means that return of investments may happen already in 1.5-2 years.
+Last runs of the simulation aimed to increase margin profit by decreasing number of maintainers and slightly increasing number of cars comparing to the best scenario (200 cars per 1,000 users). It turned out that even one maintainer is enough to perform routine maintenance of the fleet. Number of cars waiting for maintenance grew but the profit in the end increased. Graph of car statuses looks similar to what was shown before with a extra red ("need maintenance" status) cars. On the other hand, revenue now exceeds expenditures 2.5 times (comparing to 2 times with 5 maintainers). It means that return of investments may happen already in 1.5-2 years.
 At the same time, increase in number of cars from 200 to 250 (with 1 maintainer) kept the ratio revenue / expenditures at the same level increasing turnover. However, considering greater initial investments, return of investments would happen definitely not sooner than with 200 cars.

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 [[File:Car-statuses-low.jpeg|250px|thumb|left|Car statuses over time for low number of cars]]
 [[File:Low-finances.jpeg|250px|thumb|right|Revenue and expenditure for low number of cars]]
-For this simulation run, 40 cars were left including 12 premium ones. At the same time, it makes no sense to keep 5 maintainers for such a low number of cars and only 1 maintainer was kept. Because of low number of cars, statuses fluctuated more. However, number of idle cars still exceeds number of cars in rent: users are not eager to rent a car because it is mostly far away from them. Due to lower cost of maintenance, revenue is still almost twice greater than expenditures and, due to lower initial investments, return of investments will happen already in 1.5 years.
+For this simulation run, 40 cars were left including 12 premium ones. At the same time, it makes no sense to keep 5 maintainers for such a low number of cars and only 1 maintainer was kept. Because of low number of cars, statuses fluctuated more. However, number of idle cars still exceeds number of cars in rent: users are not eager to rent a car because it is mostly far away from them. Due to lower cost of maintenance, revenue is still almost twice greater than expenditures and, due to lower initial investments, return of investments will happen already in 1.5-2 years.
 ==Extremes==
@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 =Conclusion=

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 20 December 2021
Line 131:		Line 131:
	=Code=		=Code=

−	[[File:~~carsharing~~.nlogo]]	+	[[File:Carsharing.nlogo]]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 =Results=
-[[File:Car-statuses.jpeg|250px|thumb|left|Car statuses over time]]
+[[File:Demo.gif|200px|thumb|right|Renting of a car]]
 The simulation is designed in a way that number of cars, number of users, number of maintainers, number of premium cars, rental price for normal and premium cars, fuel price, and maintenance rate are adjustable.
-Unfortunately, it was not possible to get actual data from a real carsharing company operating in Prague. However, according to publicly available observations in the carsharing operator's application, ratio of cars available for rent is in average 70-80%. Similar results were obtained for 1,000 users and 200 cars.
+Unfortunately, it was not possible to get actual data from a real carsharing company operating in Prague. However, according to publicly available observations in the carsharing operator's application, ratio of cars available for rent is in average 70-80%. Similar results were obtained for 1,000 users and 200 cars (5 users per car).
-[[File:Demo.gif|200px|thumb|right|Renting of a car]]
+At the same time, increase in number of cars from 200 to 250 (with 1 maintainer) kept the ratio revenue / expenditures at the same level increasing turnover. However, considering greater initial investments, return of investments would happen definitely not sooner than with 200 cars.
 =Conclusion=

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 The simulation is designed in a way that number of cars, number of users, number of maintainers, number of premium cars, rental price for normal and premium cars, fuel price, and maintenance rate are adjustable.
-[[File:car-statuses|150px|thumb|left|car statuses]]
+[[File:Car-statuses.jpeg|150px|thumb|left|car statuses]]
 Unfortunately, it was not possible to get actual data from a real carsharing company operating in Prague. However, according to publicly available observations in the carsharing operator's application, ratio of cars available for rent is in average 70-80%. Similar results were obtained for 1,000 users and 200 cars.

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:35, 20 December 2021
(No difference)