CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

TABLE 4.1
TABLE SHOWING GENDER OF THE RESPONDENT
Gender
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Male 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid Female 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the 50 % of the respondent are male and 50 % of the
respondent are female.
CHART 4.1

CHART SHOWING GENDER OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.2
TABLE SHOWING AGE OF THE RESPONDENT

Age
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
18-25years 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
26;35years 17 17.0 17.0 34.0
36;45years 17 17.0 17.0 51.0
46;55years 17 17.0 17.0 68.0
Valid
56;65years 16 16.0 16.0 84.0
above65year 16 16.0 16.0 100.0
s
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the 17% of the respondent are aged between
the18-25 years , 17% of the respondent are aged between the 26-35years, 17% of the
respondent and36-45 years, 17 % of the respondent are aged between 46-55 years, 16% of the
respondent are aged between 56-65 years, 16% of the respondent are aged between 65 years
age above
CHART 4.2

CHART SHOWING AGE OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.3
TABLE SHOWING EDUCATION OF THE RESPONDENT
Education
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
graduate 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid postgraduate 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the graduate 50% of the respondent 50% of the
respondent are qualified that post graduate.
CHART 4.3

CHART SHOWING EDUCATION OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.4
TABLE SHOWING IMPROVEMENT
Improvement
Freque Percent Valid Cumulative
ncy Percent Percent
Technology 34 34.0 34.0 34.0
Employees 33 33.0 33.0 67.0
Valid
Infrastructure 33 33.0 33.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the 33% of the respondent are employees
33% of the respondent are infrastructure and 33% of the respondent are technology.
CHART 4.4

CHART SHOWING IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.5
TABLE SHOWING ESTIMATION OF DIFFERENT QUALITY CONTROL
METHODS

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent
yes 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid no 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the yes 50 % of the respondent are agree with
estimation of different quality control method and 50% of the respondent are disagree with
estimation of different quality control methods.

CHART 4.5

CHART SHOWING QUALITY CONTROL METHODS OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.6
TABLE SHOWING IMPLEMENTATION OF ORGANISATION OF THE
RESPONDENT

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent
yes 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid NO 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION

The above table that can be analyze that the yes 50 % of the respondent are agree with
implementation of organisation of the respondent and 50% of the respondent are disagree
with implementation of organisation .
CHART 4.6

CHART SHOWING IMPLEMENTATION OF ORGANISATION

TABLE 4.7
TABLE SHOWING PROFESSIONAL RELATION OF THE RESPONDENT

professionalrelation
Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent
Yes 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid No 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION
The above table that can be analyze that the yes 50 % of the respondent are agree
with professional relation of the respondent of the respondent and 50% of the respondent are
disagree with professional relation .
CHART 4.7

CHART SHOWING PROFESSIONAL RELATION

TABLE 4.8
TABLE SHOWING ORGANISATION STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONDENT

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent
YES 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid NO 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION
The above table that can be analyze that the yes 50 % of the respondent are agree with
organisation structure 50% of the respondent are disagree with organisation structure.

CHART 4.8

CHART SHOWING ORGANISATION STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.9
TABLE SHOWING TRADE UNIONS NECESSARY

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent
Yes 50 50.0 50.0 50.0
Valid No 50 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

INTERPRETATION
The above table that can be analyze that the 50 % of the respondent are agree with trade
unions necessary 50% of the respondent are disagree with trade unions necessary.
CHART 4.9

CHART SHOWING TRADE UNIONS NECESSARY OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.10
TABLE SHOWING PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Preventative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
24 22.4 24.0 24.0
Highly Satisfied

Satisfied 20 18.7 20.0 44.0

Neutral 20 18.7 20.0 64.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 14 13.1 14.0 78.0
22 20.6 22.0 100.0
Highly dissatisfied

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the preventative of employee are 24% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 20% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 20% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 14% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 22% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.10

CHART SHOWING PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.11
TABLE SHOWING TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE
Productive
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
24 22.4 24.0 24.0
Highly Satisfied

Satisfied 20 18.7 20.0 44.0

Neutral 15 14.0 15.0 59.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 12 11.2 12.0 71.0
29 27.1 29.0 100.0
Highly dissatisfied

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the productive of employee are 24% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 20% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 15% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 12% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 29% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied
CHART 4.11
CHART SHOWING TOTAL PRODUCTIVE MAINTENANCE OF THE
RESPONDENT

.
TABLE 4.12
TABLE SHOWING REDUCTIONAND PRILIMINARY

Preliminary
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
16 15.0 16.0 16.0
Highly Satisfied

Satisfied 17 15.9 17.0 33.0

Neutral 22 20.6 22.0 55.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 15 14.0 15.0 70.0
30 28.0 30.0 100.0
Highly dissatisfied

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the preliminary of employee are 16% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 17% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 22% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 15% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 30% of
the respondents the highly dissatisfied
CHART 4.12
CHART SHOWING REDUCTIONAND PRILIMINARY OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE 4.13

TABLE SHOWING REDUCTION INSERIES OF THE RESPONDENT

Series
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Highly satisfied 18 16.8 18.0 18.0

Satisfied 16 15.0 16.0 34.0

Neutral 26 24.3 26.0 60.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 17 15.9 17.0 77.0

Highly dissatisfied 23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Series of employee are 18% of the respondents are
says that highly satisfied, 16% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 26% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 17% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 23% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.13

CHART SHOWING REDUCTION INSERIES

TABLE 4.14
TABLE SHOWING MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT

Frequenc Percent Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent
Highly satisfied 20 18.7 20.0 20.0
Satisfied 14 13.1 14.0 34.0
Neutral 25 23.4 25.0 59.0
Valid Dissatisfied 16 15.0 16.0 75.0
Highly 25 23.4 25.0 100.0
Dissatisfied
Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the plant Layout of employee are 20% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 14% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 25% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 16% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 25% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.14
CHART SHOWING MANUFACTURING PLANT LAYOUT OF THE RESPONDENT
TABLE 4.15

TABLE SHOWING BALANCE OF WORKING PROCESS IN PRODUCTION OF

THE RESPONDENT

Workingprocess
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Highly satisfied 21 19.6 21.0 21.0

satisfied 16 15.0 16.0 37.0

Neutral 27 25.2 27.0 64.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 15 14.0 15.0 79.0

Highly dissatisfied 21 19.6 21.0 100.0

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the working process of employee are 21% of the
respondents are says that highly satisfied, 16% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 27%
of the respondents are says that neutral, 15% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied,
21% of the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.15

CHART SHOWING BALANCE OF WORKING PROCESS IN PRODUCTION OF

THE RESPONDENT
TABLE 4.16

TABLE SHOWING TAKE TIME OF THE RESPONDENT

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Highly satisfied 23 21.5 23.0 23.0

satisfied 15 14.0 15.0 38.0

Neutral 18 16.8 18.0 56.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 16 15.0 16.0 72.0

Highly dissatisfied 28 26.2 28.0 100.0

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Talk time of employee are 23% of the respondents are
says that highly satisfied, 15% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 18% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 16% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 28% of
the respondents the highly dissatisfy
CHART 4.16

CHART SHOWING TAKE TIME OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.17

TABLE SHOWING OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFIENCY OF THE RESPONDENT

Equipment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Highly satisfied 21 19.6 21.0 21.0

Satisfied 22 20.6 22.0 43.0

Neutral 18 16.8 18.0 61.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 16 15.0 16.0 77.0

Highly Dissatisfied 23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the Equipment of employee are 21% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 22% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 18% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 16% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 23% of
the respondent are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.17
CHART SHOWING OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFIENCY OF THE
RESPONDENT
TABLE 4.18
TABLE SHOWING DIMAND DRIVEN SUPPLY CHAIN OF THE RESPONDENT

Supplychain
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
24 22.4 24.0 24.0
Highly Satisfied

Satisfied 17 15.9 17.0 41.0

Neutral 24 22.4 24.0 65.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 13 12.1 13.0 78.0
22 20.6 22.0 100.0
Highly Dissatisfied

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Supply chain of employee are 24% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 17% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 24% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 13% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 22% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied
CHART 4.18
CHART SHOWING DIMAND DRIVEN SUPPLY CHAIN OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.19

TABLE SHOWING LEAN PROCUREMENT

Procurement
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Highly Satisfied 19 17.8 19.0 19.0

Satisfied 18 16.8 18.0 37.0

Neutral 30 28.0 30.0 67.0
Valid
Dissatisfied 17 15.9 17.0 84.0
16 15.0 16.0 100.0
Highly Dissatisfied

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Procurement of employee are 19% of the respondents
are says that highly satisfied, 18% of the respondents are says that satisfied, 30% of the
respondents are says that neutral, 17% of the respondents are says that dissatisfied, 16% of
the respondents are says that highly dissatisfied.
CHART 4.19
CHART SHOWING LEAN PROCUREMENT OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.20
TABLE SHOWING REDUCING COST OF PRODUCTION OF THE RESPONDENT
Kaizen
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Technology 30 28.0 30.0 30.0
Employees 25 23.4 25.0 55.0
Infrastructure 18 16.8 18.0 73.0
Valid
27 25.2 27.0 100.0
Health and safety

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Kaizen of employee are 30% of the respondents are
technology, 25% of the respondents Employee, 18% of the respondents Infrastructure, 17%
of the respondents Health and Safety.
CHART 4.20
CHART SHOWING REDUCING COST OF PRODUCTION OF THE
RESPONDENT

TABLE 4.21
TABLE SHOWING REDUCE INVENTORY COST OF FIRM
CostofProduction
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Not a reason 20 18.7 20.0 20.0

Neutral 19 17.8 19.0 39.0

Any other 20 18.7 20.0 59.0
Valid 17 15.9 17.0 76.0
Quality service

Major reason 24 22.4 24.0 100.0

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the Cost of Production of employee are 20% of the
respondents are Not a reason, 19% of the respondents are says that neutral, 20% of the
respondents Any other, 17% of the respondents Quality service, 24% of the respondents the
Major reason.
CHART 4.21
CHART SHOWING REDUCE INVENTORY COST OF FIRM

TABLE 4.22
TAPLE SHOWING FINISHED PRODUCTS

FinishedProducts
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Not a reason 19 17.8 19.0 19.0

Valid
Neutral 17 15.9 17.0 36.0
 Any other 27 25.2 27.0 63.0
15 14.0 15.0 78.0
Quality service

22 20.6 22.0 100.0

Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Finished Products of employee are 19% of the
respondents are Not a reason, 17% of the respondents are says that neutral, 27% of the
respondents Any other, 15% of the respondents Quality service, 22% of the respondents the
Major reason.

CHART 4.22
CHART SHOWING FINISHED PRODUCTS
TABLE 4.23
TAPLE SHOWING FIRM WITH COMPETITORS

FirmWithCompetitors
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
 Not a reasom 17 15.9 17.0 17.0

Neutral 24 22.4 24.0 41.0

Any other 18 16.8 18.0 59.0
Valid 18 16.8 18.0 77.0
Quality service

23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the Firm with Competitors of employee are 17% of the
respondents are Not a reason, 24% of the respondents are says that neutral, 18% of the
respondents Any other, 18% of the respondents Quality service, 23% of the respondents the
Major reason

CHART 4.23
CHART SHOWING FIRM WITH COMPETITORS
TABLE 4.24
TAPLE SHOWING REDUCE INVENTORY COST

Reduce Inventory Cost

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
23 21.5 23.0 23.0
Not a reason

Neutral 13 12.1 13.0 36.0

Any other 24 22.4 24.0 60.0
Valid 17 15.9 17.0 77.0
Quality Service

23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Reduce Inventory cost of employee are 23% of the
respondents are Not a reason, 13% of the respondents are says that neutral, 24% of the
respondents Any other, 17% of the respondents Quality service, 23% of the respondents the
Major reason.

CHART 4.24
CHART SHOWING REDUCE INVENTORY COST
TABLE 4.25
TAPLE SHOWING Trimming Supply Side Lead Times
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
22 20.6 22.0 22.0
Not a reason

Neutral 21 19.6 21.0 43.0

Any other 17 15.9 17.0 60.0
Valid 17 15.9 17.0 77.0
Quality service

23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Trimming supply side lead Times of employee are
22% of the respondents are Not a reason, 21% of the respondents are says that neutral, 17%
of the respondents Any other, 17% of the respondents Quality service, 23% of the
respondents the Major reason.

CHART 4.25
CHART SHOWING TRIMMING SUPPLY SIDE TIMES
TABLE 4.26
TAPLE SHOWING REDUCING MATERIAL CONSUMPTION
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
21 19.6 21.0 21.0
Not a reason

Neutral 20 18.7 20.0 41.0

Any other 19 17.8 19.0 60.0
Valid
19 17.8 19.0 79.0
Quality service

21 19.6 21.0 100.0

Major reason
 Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Reducing Material Consumption of employee are 21%
of the respondents are Not a reason, 20% of the respondents are says that neutral, 19% of the
respondents Any other, 19% of the respondents Quality service, 21% of the respondents the
Major reason.

CHART 4.26
CHART SHOWING REDUCE INVENTORY COST OF FIRM
TABLE 4.26
TAPLE SHOWING REDUCING DEMAND SIDE LEAD TIME
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
18 16.8 18.0 18.0
Not a reason

Neutral 20 18.7 20.0 38.0

Any other 21 19.6 21.0 59.0
Valid 18 16.8 18.0 77.0
Quality service

23 21.5 23.0 100.0

major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
 The above tables show that the Reducing Demand Side Lead time of employee are
18% of the respondents are Not a reason, 20% of the respondents are says that neutral, 21%
of the respondents Any other, 18% of the respondents Quality service, 23% of the
respondents the Major reason.

CHART 4.26
CHART SHOWING REDUCING DEMAND SIDE LEAD TIME
TABLE 4.27

TAPLE SHOWING INCREASING PROFITABILITY OF FIRM

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
23 21.5 23.0 23.0
Not a reason

Neutral 22 20.6 22.0 45.0

Valid
Any other 13 12.1 13.0 58.0
21 19.6 21.0 79.0
Quality service
 21 19.6 21.0 100.0
Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Increasing Profitability of firm of employee are 23%
of the respondents are Not a reason, 22% of the respondents are says that neutral, 13% of the
respondents Any other, 21% of the respondents Quality service, 21% of the respondents the
Major reason.

CHART 4.27

CHART SHOWING INCREASING PROFITABILITY OF FIRM

TABLE 4.28

TAPLE SHOWING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN MARKET

CompetitiveAdvantageInMarket
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Not a reason 18 16.8 18.0 18.0

Neutral 19 17.8 19.0 37.0

Valid
Any other 21 19.6 21.0 58.0
17 15.9 17.0 75.0
Quality service
 25 23.4 25.0 100.0
major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:
The above tables show that the Competitive Advantage in Market of employee are
18% of the respondents are Not a reason, 19% of the respondents are says that neutral, 21%
of the respondents Any other, 17% of the respondents Quality service, 25% of the
respondents the Major reason.

CHART 4.28

CHART SHOWING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN MARKET

TABLE 4.29

TAPLE SHOWING GREEN INITIATIVE OF ECOSYSTEM

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Not a reason 23 21.5 23.0 23.0

Neutral 17 15.9 17.0 40.0

any other 17 15.9 17.0 57.0
Valid 21 19.6 21.0 78.0
Quality Service

22 20.6 22.0 100.0

Major reason

Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the Green Initiative of Ecosystem of employee are 23% of
the respondents are Not a reason, 17% of the respondents are says that neutral, 17% of the
respondents Any other, 21% of the respondents Quality service, 22% of the respondents the
Major reason.

CHART 4.29

CHART SHOWING GREEN INVATIVE OF ECOSYSTEM

TABLE 4.30

TAPLE SHOWING UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Not a reason 22 20.6 22.0 22.0

Neutral 15 14.0 15.0 37.0

Any other 23 21.5 23.0 60.0
Valid
17 15.9 17.0 77.0
Quality service

23 21.5 23.0 100.0

Major service
 Total 100 93.5 100.0

INTERPRETATION:

The above tables show that the Unfair Trading Practices of employee are 22% of the
respondents are Not a reason, 15% of the respondents are says that neutral, 23% of the
respondents Any other, 17% of the respondents Quality service, 23% of the respondents the
Major reason

CHART 4.30

CHART SHOWING UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES

.