Reasons for dissatisfaction Poor quality Poor voice quality Higher cost Billing errors Poor customer care

Total Observed N 80 20 64 12 24 200 Expected N 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Residual 40.0 -20.0 24.0 -28.0 -16.0

Test Statistics Reasons for dissatisfacti on 90.400 4 .000

Chi-Squarea df Asymp. Sig.

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 40.0.

technique: the χ2 test for goodness-of-fit (null) hypothesis: that the different reasons are equally important (i.e. the theoretical distribution is a uniform distribution) interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • It follows that the different reasons for dissatisfaction with mobile telephone service are not equally important, i.e. some of the reasons are more important than others. • In fact, comparing the observed frequencies with the expected frequencies, one can conclude that ‘poor quality’ and ‘higher cost’ represent the two most important reasons for dissatisfaction with mobile telephone service.

S e rv ic e p ro v id e r * R e a s o n s f o r d is s a t is f a c tio n C ro s s t a b u la t io n R e a s o n s f o r d is s a t is f a c t io n Poor P o o r v o ic e c u s to m e r P o o r q u a lit y u a lit y H ig h e r c o B illin g e r r o r sc a r e q st T o ta l 16 12 8 8 8 52 p r o v3id e8r % 2 3 . 1 % 0. 1 5 .4 % 1 5 .4 % 1 5 .4 % 1 0 0 .0 % 28 4 8 0 4 44 p r o v6id e6r % 3. 9 .1 % 1 8 .2 % .0 % 9 .1 % 1 0 0 .0 % 12 0 28 0 0 40 p r o v3id e0r % 0. .0 % 7 0 .0 % .0 % .0 % 1 0 0 .0 % 0 0 12 0 8 20 p r o v id. 0 % er .0 % 6 0 .0 % .0 % 4 0 .0 % 1 0 0 .0 % 24 4 8 4 0 40 p r o v6id e0r % 1 0 . 0 % 0. 2 0 .0 % 1 0 .0 % .0 % 1 0 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 4 4 p r o v id. 0 % er .0 % .0 % .0 % 1 0 0 .0 % 1 0 0 .0 % 80 20 64 12 24 200 p r o v4id e0r % 1 0 . 0 % 0. 3 2 .0 % 6 .0 % 1 2 .0 % 1 0 0 .0 %
Chi-Square Tests Value 134.790a 137.241 .238 200 df 20 20 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .626

S e r v ic eA ir t e l p r o v id e r

Count % w it h in H u tc h C o u n t % w it h in S p ic e C o u n t % w it h in BSNL Count % w it h in R e lia n c e o u n t C % w it h in T a ta Count % w it h in T o ta l Count % w it h in

S e r v ic e S e r v ic e S e r v ic e S e r v ic e S e r v ic e S e r v ic e S e r v ic e

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 17 cells (56.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.

technique: the χ2 test for independence (null) hypothesis: that the reasons for dissatisfaction are independent of the service provider interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • It follows that the reasons for dissatisfaction are not independent of the service provider, i.e. different reasons are associated with each of the service providers. • For Hutch and Reliance, there is higher concentration in poor quality as a reason for dissatisfaction, while for Spice and BSNL, there is higher concentration in higher cost as a reason for dissatisfaction. For Airtel, there does not seem to be significantly higher concentration in any specific reason for dissatisfaction. (There are too few sample units from Tata Indicom to draw a meaningful inference.)

O n e -S a m p le K o lm o g o ro v - S m irn o v T e s t S a tis fa c tio n le v e l 200 2 .5 2 1 .2 0 7 .3 0 7 .3 0 7 - .1 5 3 4 .3 3 7 .0 0 0

N a te N o r m a l P a r a m e ,b rsM e a n S td . D e v ia tio n M o s t E x tre m e A b s o lu te D iffe r e n c e s P o s itiv e N e g a tiv e K o lm o g o ro v - S m ir n o v Z A s y m p . S ig . ( 2 - ta ile d ) a . T e s t d is tr ib u tio n is N o rm a l. b . C a lc u la te d fr o m d a ta .

technique: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness-of-fit (null) hypothesis: that the satisfaction level for mobile telephone services is normally distributed interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • It follows that the satisfaction level for mobile telephone services is not normally distributed.

O n e - S a m p le S ta tis tic s N S a t is f a c t io n le v e 2 0 0 l S td . E r r o r M e a n S t d . D e v ia t ioM e a n n 2 .5 2 1 .2 0 7 .0 8 5

O n e - S a m p le T e s t T e s t V a lu e = 3 9 5 % C o n fid e n c e In te r v a l o f th e D iffe r e n c e M ean df S ig . ( 2 - ta ile d )D iffe r e n c e L o w e r Upper 199 .0 0 0 - .4 8 0 - .6 5 - .3 1

t S a tis fa c tio n le v e l - 5 .6 2 4

technique: the t-test for a single population mean (null) hypothesis: that the mean satisfaction level for mobile telephone services is equal to ‘3’ (representing ‘average/neutral’) interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • It follows that the satisfaction level for mobile telephone services is significantly less than ‘3.’ • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the mean satisfaction level for mobile telephone services is relatively high.

G ro u p Sta tis tic s Se rvice p ro vid e r S atisfa ctio n le ve Airte l l H u tch N 52 44 Std . Erro r M e a n Std . D e via tio n M e a n 2 .15 .8 7 2 .1 2 1 2 .82 1 .2 0 6 .1 8 2

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -1.087 -1.099 -.242 -.230

F Satisfaction level Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 13.331

Sig. .000

t -3.124 -3.043

df 94 76.780

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .003

Mean Difference -.664 -.664

Std. Error Difference .213 .218

technique: the independent-samples t-test for equality of two population means (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the mean satisfaction level for Airtel and Hutch users. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • Firstly, Levene’s test for equality of variance is significant. It follows that there is significant difference in variance (in satisfaction level) between the groups; i.e. significantly higher variation in satisfaction level among Hutch users than among Airtel users. • Secondly, the t-test with equal variances not assumed is significant, and the calculated value of t is negative. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the mean satisfaction level for Airtel is significantly higher than that of Hutch.

Ranks Satisfaction level Service provider Airtel Hutch Total N 52 44 96 Mean Rank 42.04 56.14 Sum of Ranks 2186.00 2470.00

a Test Statistics

Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Satisfaction level 808.000 2186.000 -2.619 .009

a. Grouping Variable: Service provider

technique: the Mann-Whitney U-test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the distribution of satisfaction level for Airtel and Hutch users. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • The mean rank of the Airtel group is lower than that of the Hutch group. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the satisfaction levels for Airtel are significantly higher than that of Hutch.

Frequencies Satisfaction level Service provider Airtel Hutch Total
a Test Statistics

N 52 44 96

Most Extreme Differences Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Absolute Positive Negative

Satisfaction level .287 .287 .000 1.400 .040

a. Grouping Variable: Service provider

technique: the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the distribution of satisfaction level for Airtel and Hutch users. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value < 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • The difference in distribution functions is always non-negative. This means that the distribution function for satisfaction level for Airtel is always greater than or equal to that for Hutch. It follows that the values in the distribution of satisfaction level for Airtel are lowe than the values in the distribution of satisfaction level for Hutch. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the satisfaction levels for Airtel are significantly higher than that of Hutch.

R e p o rt S a tis fa c t io n le v e l S e r v ic e p r o v idM re a n S t d . e A ir te l 2 .1 5 H u tc h 2 .8 2 S p ic e 2 .6 0 BSNL 2 .4 0 R e lia n c e 2 .7 0 T a ta 2 .0 0 T o ta l 2 .5 2 D e v ia tio n e w n e s sK u r to s is Sk .8 7 2 .4 2 8 - .3 6 4 1 .2 0 6 .3 6 6 - 1 . 1 1 4 1 .2 9 7 1 .1 0 5 - .1 2 9 1 .3 9 2 .2 2 9 - 1 . 9 3 6 1 .3 6 3 .3 2 3 - 1 . 3 6 3 .0 0 0 . . 1 .2 0 7 .6 4 5 - .6 6 0

A N O V A T a b le Sum of S q u a re s 1 3 .8 0 5 2 7 6 .1 1 5 2 8 9 .9 2 0 df 5 194 199 M ean Square 2 .7 6 1 1 .4 2 3 F 1 .9 4 0 S ig . .0 8 9

S a tis fa c tio n le v eB e tw e e n G ro u p ( C o m b in e d ) l s * S e rvice p ro vid e r ith in G ro u p s W T o ta l

technique: one-way ANOVA (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the mean satisfaction level for different service providers. interpretation: the results of the test are not statistically significant (i.e. p-value > 0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. • Thus, it follows that there is no significant difference in the mean satisfaction level for different service providers.

Ranks Satisfaction level Service provider Airtel Hutch Spice BSNL Reliance Tata Total N 52 44 40 20 40 4 200 Mean Rank 87.12 114.68 103.70 90.50 105.90 82.50

a,b Test Statistics

Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

Satisfaction level 7.731 5 .172

a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Service provider

technique: the Kruskal-Wallis test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the distribution of satisfaction levels for different service providers. interpretation: the results of the test are not statistically significant (i.e. p-value >0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis cannot rejected. • Thus, it follows that there is no significant difference in the distribution of satisfaction levels for different service providers.

F re q u e n c ie s S e r v ic e p r o v id e r S p ic e B S N L R e lia n c e T a ta 12 8 16 0 28 12 24 4

S a t is f a c tio n le>v e l e d ia n M < = M e d ia n

A ir te l 16 36

H u tc h 20 24

b Test Statistics

N Median Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

Satisfaction level 200 2.00 5.616 a 5 .345

a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 1.4. b. Grouping Variable: Service provider

technique: the median test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the median satisfaction level for different service providers. interpretation: the results of the test are not statistically significant (i.e. p-value >0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis cannot rejected. • Thus, it follows that there is no significant difference in the median satisfaction level for different service providers.

Paired Samp les Statistics M ean 1.36 2.68 N Std. Deviation 200 .626 200 1.050 Std. Error M ean .044 .074

Pair 1

Calls SM S/M M S

Paired Samp les Correlations N Pair 1 Calls & SM S/M M S 200 Correlation .115 Sig. .105

P a ire d S a m p le s T e s t P a ir e d D iffe r e n c e s 9 5 % C o n fid e n c e In te r v a l o f th e D iffe r e n c e S td . E r r o r M e a n S td . D e v ia tio nM e a n Lower Upper t P a ir 1 C a lls - S M S /M M S1 .3 2 0 1 .1 5 9 .0 8 2 - 1 .4 8 2 - 1 .1 5 8 - 1 6 .1 0 0

df S ig . ( 2 - ta ile d ) 199 .0 0 0

technique: the paired-samples t-test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the mean satisfaction level for calls and for SMS/MMS. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value <0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the mean satisfaction level for calls is significantly higher than that for SMS/MMS.

Ran ks N SM S/M M S - CallsNegative Ranks Positive Ranks T ies T otal a. SM S/M M S < Calls b. SM S/M M S > Calls c. SM S/M M S = Calls
b Test Statistics

8a 168b 24c 200

M ean Rank Sum of Ranks 116.50 932.00 87.17 14644.00

SMS/MMS Calls Z -10.370 a Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Based on negative ranks. b. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

technique: the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the distribution of satisfaction levels for calls and for SMS/MMS. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value <0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the satisfaction levels for calls are significantly higher than that for SMS/MMS.

Frequencies N
a SMS/MMS - Calls Negative Differences b Positive Differences c Ties Total

8 168 24 200

a. SMS/MMS < Calls b. SMS/MMS > Calls c. SMS/MMS = Calls
a Test Statistics

SMS/MMS Calls Z -11.985 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 a. Sign Test

technique: the paired-samples sign test (null) hypothesis: that there is no difference in the distribution of satisfaction levels for calls and for SMS/MMS. interpretation: the results of the test are statistically significant (i.e. p-value <0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • (Note: in the above, the scaling for the satisfaction level was in reverse: ‘1’ represented ‘highly satisfied,’ and at the other extreme, ‘5’ represented ‘not at all satisfied.’) • Thus, it follows that the satisfaction levels for calls are significantly higher than that for SMS/MMS.

Model Summary Model R R Square .602 d .363 Adjusted R Square .352 Std. Error of the Estimate 45.709

d. Predictors: SalesStaff, Average O E, Average Inventory
e,f ANOVA

Model Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 215337.7 378161.3 593499.0

df 3 181 184

Mean Square 71779.227 2089.289

F 34.356

Sig. .000d

d. Predictors: SalesStaff, Average O E, Average Inventory e. Dependent Variable: conversions/weekdays f. Linear Regression through the Origin

a,b Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error SalesStaff 5.375 .681 Average O E -1.2E-005 .000 Average Inventory 5.12E-006 .000

Standardized Coefficients Beta .625 -.325 .227

t 7.889 -3.572 2.512

Sig. .000 .000 .013

a. Dependent Variable: conversions/weekdays b. Linear Regression through the Origin

d,e Excluded Variables

Model rentals manpower Electricity total Peak season Off season

Beta In .004c .028c -.020c -.023c .041c -.068c

t .069 .313 -.262 -.316 .169 -.427

Sig. .945 .754 .794 .752 .866 .670

Partial Correlation .005 .023 -.019 -.024 .013 -.032

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .833 .449 .608 .683 .061 .138

c. Predictors in the Model: SalesStaff, Average O E, Average Inventory d. Dependent Variable: conversions/weekdays e. Linear Regression through the Origin

technique: stepwise multiple linear regression through the origin (null) hypothesis: that none of the independent variables affect the dependent variable: • dependent variable: conversions/weekdays • independent variables: sales staff, average operating expenses, average inventory, rentals, manpower, electricity, total, peak season, and off-season interpretation: the results of the regression are statistically significant (i.e. p-value <0.05); i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected. • Thus, it follows that the conversion on weekdays is significantly affected only by three of the independent variables: sales staff, average operating expenses, and average inventory. • Of these, sales staff is the most important, having almost twice the impact on conversion rates as average operating expenses, and three times the impact as average inventory. • Also, conversion on weekdays increases with increase in sales staff and average inventory, but decreases with increase in average operating expenses. • Overall, these three independent variables explain 36.3% of the variation in conversions on weekdays. • The other independent variables did not significantly affect the conversions on weekdays.