PLE Case Study

CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE LAWN EQUIPMENT
Bachelor of Business Administration

Business Intelligence and Data Analytics
ALWINA
A018130620022
2021
Amity International Business School
Amity University
Sector – 125 Noida, U.P-201303

Performance Lawn Equipment (PLE) originally produced lawn mowers, but as the company
began small-tractor production it has seen a large portion of sales volume derive from small-
tractor sales. Three years ago PLE began to serve the Chinese market, as the small-tractor market
has been booming. The following data highlights PLE's overall market position and business
performance through an examination of the information provided within the database.
All work and graphics presented below were created in Excel.
Data Visualization
PART-1
The following charts represent data in the following worksheets: Dealer Satisfaction, End-User
Satisfaction, Complaints, Mower Unit Sales, Tractor Unit Sales, On-Time Delivery, Defects after
Delivery and Response Time. Each graph is followed with a summary that explains how the data
relates to the company’s performance in various aspects (e.g. sales).
60% Comparison of dealer rating by year

50%
40% 2014
2015
30% 2016
2017
20% 2018
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5
The percentage of dealer ratings of 5 increased from 21% in 2014 to 47% in 2018 showing that
dealer are more satisfied than previous years
Comparison of end user ratings by year
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
The percentage of end user rating were fairly consistent from 2014 to 2018.
Numbers of complaint by region and month

400
350
300
World
250
NA
200 SA
Eur
150 Pac
China
100
50
0
1 4 14 1 4 14 1 5 15 1 5 15 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 7 17 1 7 1 8 1 8 18 1 8
an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct-
J A O J A O J A O J A O J A O
The complaint follow a seasonal trend increasing to high in June and low in January across all
regions. This corresponds to the seasonal trends in mower and tractor sales. NA accounted for
most of the complaint, followed by Europe, SA, Pacific and China.
Mower unit sales by region and month
14000
12000
10000
NA
8000 SA
Europe
6000 Pacific
China
4000 World
2000
0
14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 1 6 16 16 17 1 7 17 17 18 18 18 18
n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t-
Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc
Mower sales followed a seasonal trend, increasing to highs in June and low in January across all
region. NA accounted for most sales followed by Europe, SA , Pacific and China
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
NA
2500 SA
Eur
2000
Pacific
1500 China
World
1000
500
0
1 4 14 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 6 16 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 7 17 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8
an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct- an- pr- Jul- ct-
J A O J A O J A O J A O J A O
 Tractor sales followed a seasonal trend in NA, increasing to higher in august and low in
January across all region
 Sales in NA have been increasing from 2014 to 2018 taking seasonality in account
 Sales in China and SA have also been increasing during the same period
 Sales in Pacific have been consistent during the same period
 Sales in Europe reached a high rate in 2014 and have been declining
Percent on time delivery

99.5%
99.0%
98.5%
98.0% Percent
97.5%
97.0%
96.5%
1 4 14 1 4 1 4 1 5 15 1 5 1 5 1 6 1 6 16 1 6 1 7 17 1 7 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8
n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t- n- r- l- t-
Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc Ja Ap Ju Oc
Between 97.6% and 99.3% of deliveries were on time from 2014 to 2018. Most notably,
deliveries were on time only 98% of the time in December 2018. Overall, the percentage of on
time deliveries increased from 2014 to 2018.
Average no. of defect per million of items received from suppliers
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average number of defect per million of items received from suppliers decrease d from 826 in
2014 to 496 in 2018
Average time response to customer service call

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018
From data gathered from Q1 2017 to Q4 2018, the average time response to customer service
calls was between 2.50 and 4.50, with the highest response time in Q4 2017and lowest in Q4
2018.
PART-2
The following data is associated with the unit shipping costs of proposed plant locations and also
there is comparison of the costs of existing locations against those of the proposed locations
using quartiles.
EXISTING PLANTS
MOWERS
$1.3 of the shipping cost fall at or above
First quartile 1 25% $1.31
$1.4
Second quartile 8 50% of the shipping cost fall at above $1.48
$1.5 of the shipping cost fall at or below
Third quartile 3 75% 41.53
$1.7
Fourth quartile 2 100% of the shipping cost fall at or below maximum value $1.72
TRACTORS
$1.7
First quartile 7 25% of the shipping cost fall at or below $ 1.77
$1.8 of the shipping cost fall at or below
second quartile 4 50% $1.84
$2.1
Third quartile 1 75% of the shipping cost fall at or below $ 2.11
$2.3
Fourth quartile 4 100% of the shipping cost fall at or below the maximum value $2.34
PROPSED PLANTS
MOWERS
$1.4
First quartile 0 25% of the shipping costs fall at or below $1.40
$1.5
Second quartile 2 50% of the shipping costs fall at or below $1.52
$1.6
Third quartile 6 75% of the shipping costs fall at or below $1.66
$1.9
Fourth quartile 8 100% of the shipping cost fall at or below the maximum value $1.98
TRACTORS
$1.7
First quartile 8 25% of the shipping costs fall at or below $1.78
$2.0
Second quartile 1 50% of the shipping costs fall at or below $ 2.01
$2.1
Third quartile 7 75% of the shipping costs fall at or below $ 2.17
$2.6 of the shipping costs fall at or below the maximum value
Fourth quartile 8 100% $2.68
PART-3
The unit shipping costs between the proposed plants and the customers are more when compared
to the costs of the existing locations
a PivotTable was created in

which the average response for
each
customer attribute (Quality,
Ease of Use, Price, and Service)
was calculated for each
market region (China, Europe,
North America, South America,
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
each
and Pacific).
different aspects of customer
satisfaction, measured in 2014,
are
summarized. This is important
for customer retention, which
drives, demand and
ultimately profit.
Below different aspects of customer satisfaction, measured in 2014, are summarized. This is
important for customer retention which derives demand and ultimately profits.
A PivotTable was created in which the average response for each customer attribute (Quality,
Ease of Use, Price, and Service) was calculated for each market region (China, Europe, North
America, South America, and Pacific).
Average of Average of Ease of Average of Average of

Row Labels Quality Use Price Service
China 3.8 4.1 3 2.6
Eur 4.1 4.333333333 3.9 3.866666667
NA 4.6 4.27 3.71 4.31
Pac 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.3
SA 4.28 3.92 3.5 4.24
Grand Total 4.395 4.165 3.67 4.14
As for
market regions, China had the
lowest overall average for all
the customer attributes by a
wide margin.
As for
wide margin.
As for
wide margin
As for market regions, China had the lowest overall average for all the customer attributes by a
wide margin. North America has responses than any other market region.
A frequency distribution of the customer attributes for each region was also created.
As for
wide margin
As for
wide margin
As for
wide margin
Quality - Number of Responses
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
scale 1 scale 2 scale 3 scale 4 scale 5
Quality of the PLE tractors was rated as “above average” and “ excellent” by most of the
customers over all regions.
Ease of use - Number of Responses

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
The number of responses with “above average” rating are relatively more over all the regions.
Most of the customers think that PLE tractors are easy to use
100 Price - Number of Responses
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unlike the other attributes of the PLE tractors, there is a mixed response with considerable
number of customers rating the price attribute as “poor”, “less than average” and “ average”.
However, the number of responses with “ above average” ratings are high.
100 Service - Number of Responses

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Most of the customers think that the service is satisfactory over all the regions. However, there
are customers who responded with a “poor” and “less than average” rating also.
The company should work towards improving its service over all the regions, specially in the
new market region - China
QUARTILES
Quality Ease of Use Price Service
FIRST QUARTILE 4 4 3 4
SECOND QUARTILE 5 4 4 4
THIRD QUARTILE 5 5 4 5
FOURTH QUARTILE 5 5 5 5
Considering the trade – offs between the four attributes, the company can still work towards
improving the overall quality and service making the products easy to use with a price
reasonable for the customers based on each region.
Descriptive Statistics
a) Dealer Satisfaction and End – User Satisfaction
Dealer Satisfaction
Mean Satisfaction Ratings:
North South
Year\ Region America America Europe Pacific Rim China
2014 3.78 4 3.93 3.2 -
2015 3.92 4 4 3.4 -
2016 3.97 4.27 4.12 3.67 3
2017 4.11 4.5 4.07 4.1 3.14
2018 4.11 4.5 4.07 3.83 3.69
The mean satisfaction ratings of dealers increased each year in North America, South
America and China when compared to Europe where the average ratings dropped after 2016
and Pacific Rim after 2017. China’s rating stand out low followed by Pacific Rim over the
years.
Standard Deviations of the Satisfaction Ratings:
North South
2014 0.975 0.667 0.884 0.837 -
2015 0.853 0.667 0.845 0.894 -
2016 0.938 0.828 0.726 1.033 -
2017 1.072 0.863 0.64 0.738 0.69
2018 1.094 0.915 0.74 0.835 0.793
The standard deviations of dealer ratings in North America and relatively higher over the
years indicating relatively more deviation of ratings from their average when compared to
other region. Standard deviations are low in Europe followed by China in 2018.
End User Satisfaction:
Mean Satisfaction Ratings:
North South
2014 3.98 4 3.97 3.92 -
2015 4.04 3.95 3.96 3.95 -
2016 4.04 3.99 3.9 4 3.78
2017 4.17 4 4.07 4.06 3.86
2018 4.22 4.02 4.07 4.07 4.12
The mean satisfaction ratings of end user increased each year in North America, Pacific Rim
and China when compared to South America where there was a dip in the average rating for
2015 and Europe for 2015 and 2016, By 2018, South America’s ratings are low compared to
other markets. China began with relatively lowest average ratings of end users but it stands
high only after North America in 2018.
Standard Deviations of the Satisfaction Ratings:

North South
2014 1.101 1.054 1.039 1.134 -
2015 1.044 1.104 1.063 1.058 -
2016 1.063 0.99 0.99 1.035 1.036
2017 0.965 0.974 0.956 0.941 1.069
2018 0.949 0.974 0.832 0.868 0.773
In 2018, the standard deviations od end user’s rating in South America are high indicating
relatively more deviation of ratings from their averages when compared to other markets.
Standard deviations are low in China.
b) Customer Survey Data
Quality
Descriptive North South
Statistics America America Europe Pacific Rim China
Mean 4.6 4.28 4.1 4.4 3.8
0.06513389 0.11080411 0.154250 0.2211083 0.290593
Standard Error 5 1 1 2 3
Median 5 4 4 4.5 4
Mode 5 4 4 5 4
Standard 0.65133894 0.78350338 0.844862 0.918936
Deviation 7 3 8 0.6992059 6
0.42424242 0.61387755 0.713793 0.4888888 0.844444
Sample Variance 4 1 1 9 4
-
4.90388295 0.385773 0.396220
Kurtosis 8.42729404 3 3 -0.1461039 8
- - -
2.28280601 0.566081 0.601381
Skewness 5 -1.60727897 1 -0.7801058 6
Range 4 4 3 2 3
Minimum 1 1 2 3 2
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5
Sum 460 214 123 44 38
Count 100 50 30 10 10
Price
Descriptive North South Pacific
Statistics America America Europe Rim China
Mean 3.71 3.5 3.9 4.1 3
Standard Error 0.110366698 0.149147236 0.199712 0.1795055 0.210819
Median 4 4 4 4 3
Mode 4 4 4 4 3
Standard Deviation 1.103666982 1.054630219 1.09387 0.5676462 0.666667
Sample Variance 1.218080808 1.112244898 1.196552 0.3222222 0.444444
-
Kurtosis 0.013829301 0.281588519 1.708055 1.4982164 0.080357
-
Skewness -0.779332096 0.598061703 -1.31426 0.0911204 0
Range 4 4 4 2 2
Minimum 1 1 1 3 2
Maximum 5 5 5 5 4
Sum 371 175 117 41 30
Count 100 50 30 10 10
Ease Of Use
Descriptive North South
Statistics America America Europe Pacific Rim China
Mean 4.27 3.92 4.3333333 3.9 4.1
Standard Error 0.082700628 0.102379845 0.1206623 0.27688746 0.1795055
Median 4 4 4 4 4
Mode 4 4 4 4 4
Sample Variance 0.683939394 0.524081633 0.4367816 0.76666667 0.3222222
-
Kurtosis 4.015852878 5.215213212 0.6197072 1.83094788 1.4982164
- - -
Skewness 1.636641044 1.558310533 0.4835096 -1.0179413 0.0911204
Range 4 4 2 3 2
Minimum 1 1 3 2 3
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5
Sum 427 196 130 39 41
Count 100 50 30 10 10
Services
Descriptive North South Pacific
Statistics America America Europe Rim China
3.86666
Mean 4.31 4.24 7 4.3 2.6
0.07479939 0.11626851 0.18403 0.213437 0.26666
Standard Error 5 4 7 5 7
Median 4 4 4 4 3
Mode 5 4 4 4 3
Standard 0.82214254 1.00801 0.674948 0.84327
Deviation 0.74799395 7 4 6 4
0.55949494 0.67591836 1.01609 0.455555 0.71111
Sample Variance 9 7 2 6 1
-
1.00691375 3.44496521 1.09337 0.282994 0.37039
Kurtosis 5 5 3 8 6
- - -
1.02189611 1.39775589 0.433637
Skewness 9 3 -1.01514 4 -0.38911
Range 3 4 4 2 3
Minimum 2 1 1 3 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 4
Sum 431 212 116 43 26
Count 100 50 30 10 10
China’s ratings, and to some extent South America’s, stand out as being lower when compared to
more mature markets, such as North America and Europe. Of particular concern is an extremely
low average of service and price ratings in China, as well as relatively low average of price
ratings in South America.
On the other hand, quality ratings and to some extent, the ease of use ratings are consistently
high across all markets, but especially in more developed markets of North America and Pacific
Rim.
Standard deviations are comparable across different types of ratings and different markets, with
few higher readings in the price and service columns, but nothing apparent stands out.
The customer ratings are negatively skewed across all markets for all the attributes except for the
ease of use ratings in China and the price ratings in Pacific Rim which are positively skewed.
The distribution of the price ratings of customers in China are perfectly symmetrical and
unimodal with zero skewness coefficient and equal mean, median and mode.
The ease of use ratings in Europe and China, the price ratings in Pacific Rim and the services
ratings in the Pacific Rim and China are relatively symmetrical.
The quality and ease of use ratings in North America and South America and the services ratings
in South America have peaked distribution with less dispersion.
c) Response Time
Descriptive Statistics Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018
3.91595 3.72506 3.74736 4.45293 3.08833 3.11375 3.20270

Mean 4 1 4 1 9 3 7 2.52783
0.20958 0.27096 0.19783 0.29960 0.22418 0.17369 0.18093 0.15992
Standard Error 6 1 4 8 7 2 4 5
3.82870 4.01261 3.60159 2.97219 3.05019 2.47740
Median 7 4 2 4.15441 2 4 3.16401 5
Mode #N/A 0.9 #N/A 1 0.9 0.9 1 0.9
1.48199 1.39889 2.11854 1.58523 1.22818 1.27939 1.13083
Standard Deviation 5 1.91598 6 6 9 6 6 8
2.19631 3.67098 1.95690 4.48823 2.51298 1.50844 1.63685 1.27879
Sample Variance 1 1 9 6 3 1 5 4
0.09341 1.30013
Kurtosis 9 -0.33713 -0.36298 -0.69051 -0.80818 -0.67196 7 -0.98311
0.22320 0.32383 0.22418 0.41471 0.08943 0.65215 0.23265
Skewness 5 9 0.00521 6 6 1 9 9
7.01913 7.31248 5.85621 8.02961 5.55546 4.76607 6.41924 3.97243
Range 8 9 3 4 2 5 2 8
Minimum 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.9
8.01913 8.21248 6.75621 8.92961 6.45546 5.66607 7.41924 4.87243
Maximum 8 9 3 4 2 5 2 8
195.797 187.368 222.646 155.687 160.135 126.391
Sum 7 186.253 2 5 154.417 6 4 5
Count 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
8.01913 8.21248 6.75621 8.92961 6.45546 5.66607 7.41924 4.87243
Largest(1) 8 9 3 4 2 5 2 8
Smallest(1) 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.9
The average response time taken by the PLE customer service personnel to respond to service
calls was highest in the fourth quarter of 2017 associated with more deviation.
The average response time came down in 2018 when compared to 2017 indicating an
improvement in customer service process. By the fourth quarter of 2018, the average came down
to the lowest along with the decrease in its standard deviations.
The response time over all the quarters of the past 2 years are positively skewed with relatively
symmetrical distribution except for the third quarter of 2018 which has moderate skewness.
The response time over all the quarters have flat distributions with wide degree of dispersions.
d) Defects after delivery

Descriptive Statistics 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Mean 826.3333 837.4167 785.9167 669.0833 496.25

Standard Error 3.35824 3.182476 15.13748 8.941272 15.65254
Median 826.5 839 805 681.5 484
Mode #N/A 828 804 #N/A #N/A
Sample Variance 135.3333 121.5379 2749.72 959.3561 2940.023
Kurtosis -0.58025 0.253354 -0.21001 0.807776 -1.74896
Skewness 0.218469 -0.14208 -1.21202 -1.39278 0.271461
Range 38 41 150 93 139
Minimum 810 816 686 603 436
Maximum 848 857 836 696 575
Sum 9916 10049 9431 8029 5955
Count 12 12 12 12 12
The average number of defects per million items received every month from suppliers had
slightly increased in 2015, however, there was a substantial decline thereafter.
Almost 40% reduction in the average number of defects in 2018 when compared to 2014.
Very high increase in the standard deviation in 2016 followed by a drop in 2017 and increase in
2018.
The distribution of the number of defects in 2014 was positively skewed with a relatively
symmetrical nature which is the same for 2018 also after undergoing apparent changes in 2015
through 2017.
e) Mower and Tractor Sales

Monthly Mower Sales:
Monthly Mower Sale

Descriptive Statistics NA SA Europe Pacific Rim China World
Mean 7542.333 282.3333 1149 172.5 1.883333 9148.05
Standard Error 227.3237 6.108097 48.70278 4.8106814 0.709138 267.3463
Median 7870 280 1260 170 0 9390
Mode 9050 250 1590 150 0 7020
Standard Deviation 1760.842 47.31312 377.2501 37.263378 5.492959 2070.856
Sample Variance 3100564 2238.531 142317.6 1388.5593 30.1726 4288444
Kurtosis -1.23546 -0.29297 -0.84635 -1.194524 9.219256 -1.18973
Skewness -0.11869 0.17792 -0.53371 0.0446029 3.117068 -0.18885
Range 6020 210 1350 140 26 6930
Minimum 4350 180 300 100 0 5350
Maximum 10370 390 1650 240 26 12280
Sum 452540 16940 68940 10350 113 548883
Count 60 60 60 60 60 60
Coefficient of variance 23.35 16.76 32.83 21.06 22.63
Industry Mower Total Sales:
Industry Mower Total

Sales
Mean 72580.89 675.8406 21120.05 1628.2276 93.66667 96004.17
Standard Error 2159.846 13.44405 860.5165 42.717012 34.73542 2816.727
Median 75883.02 654.1528 23831.24 1552.5438 0 97955.18
Mode 60000 625 29444.44 1214.9533 0 #N/A
Sample Variance 2.8E+08 10844.55 44429315 109484.59 72392.97 4.76E+08
Kurtosis -1.25456 -0.70645 -0.84016 -1.326642 13.59434 -1.13531
Skewness -0.14628 0.418732 -0.60063 0.0561994 3.653381 -0.28109
Range 58083.46 424.1758 23589.29 1136.8182 1386 75786.03
Minimum 42596.15 461.5385 6976.744 1045 0 53981.68
Maximum 100679.6 885.7143 30566.04 2181.8182 1386 129767.7
Sum 4354853 40550.44 1267203 97693.655 5620 5760250
Count 60 60 60 60 60 60
Coefficient of variance 23.05 15.41 31.56 20.32 22.73
The dispersion of industry mower sales relative to its mean are low over all markets when
compared to the PLE mower sales. However, the difference is relatively small.
Also, the coefficients of variation for overall mower sales and overall industry mower sales are
almost the same.
Monthly Tractor Sales:
Monthly Tractor Sale

Mean 1075.033 598.35 647.9667 272.18333 46.65 2640.183
Standard Error 75.70645 30.37212 12.1931 5.0141884 6.736226 105.0135
Median 835 605 647.5 270 23 2408
Mode 570 280 680 290 0 2324
Sample Variance 343888 55347.93 8920.304 1508.5251 2722.604 661670.3
Kurtosis -0.13181 -1.27293 -0.37776 -0.471209 -1.253821 -0.65212
Skewness 1.005045 0.00104 0.403752 -0.086968 0.647419 0.661644
Range 2130 752 408 160 139 2884
Minimum 360 250 480 190 0 1592
Maximum 2490 1002 888 350 139 4476
Sum 64502 35901 38878 16331 2799 158411
Count 60 60 60 60 60 60
CV 54.55 39.32 14.58 14.27 111.85 30.81
Industry Total Tractor Sales:
Industry Tractor
Total Sales
Mean 7726.268 2092.908 6436.15 1322.727 1069.885 18647.94
Standard Error 293.8582 96.84844 107.7077 24.984742 117.1014 467.7558
Median 7559.524 2176.352 6318.272 1298.1969 588.7446 17747.65
Mode #N/A 1056.604 6666.667 1126.7606 315 #N/A
Sample Variance 5181158 562777.2 696057.3 37454.24 822763.7 13127728
Kurtosis -0.18085 -1.23708 -0.45952 -0.632684 -1.30289 -0.59464
Skewness 0.576295 -0.06079 0.467126 0.2274424 0.682667 0.60119
Range 9546.416 2412.387 3330.447 758.31429 2375.061 13657.27
Minimum 3913.043 977.4436 5050.505 974.35897 278 13716.25
Maximum 13459.46 3389.831 8380.952 1732.6733 2653.061 27373.52
Sum 463576.1 125574.5 386169 79363.62 64193.13 1118876
Count 60 60 60 60 60 60
Coefficient of
variance 29.46 35.84 12.96 14.63 84.78 19.43
Compared to the PLE tractor sales, the dispersion of industry tractor sales relative to its mean are
low over all markets except for Pacific (slight difference).
For North America and China, there is a huge difference between the coefficient of variation for
tractor sales and industry tractor sales.
Overall, the dispersion of PLE tractor sales relatives to its mean is high over the industry tractor
sales.
Correlation between Monthly Mower Sales and Industry Mower Sales:
NA SA Europe Pacific Rim Chin World

a
correlation coefficient 0.99 0.757 0.979 0.99 0.9 0.99
6
There is a very strong positive linear relationship between the monthly mower sales and the
industry mower sales in North America, Europe and Pacific. The relation is moderate in South
America.
Overall, an increase (decrease) in the monthly mower sales will result in an increase (decrease) in
industry mower sales or vice-versa.
Correlation between Monthly Tractor Sales and Industry Tractor Sales:
NA SA Europe Pacific Rim Chin World

a
correlation coefficient 0.89 0.999 0.919 0.98 0.99 0.96
3 6
There is a strong positive linear relationship between the monthly tractor sales and the industry
tractor sales in all the markets. The relation is actually perfect in South America.
Overall, an increase (decrease) in the monthly tractor sales will result in an increase (decrease) in
industry tractor sales or vice-versa.

PLE Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLE Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE STUDY: PERFORMANCE LAWN EQUIPMENT

Bachelor of Business Administration

Amity International Business School

Sector – 125 Noida, U.P-201303

60% Comparison of dealer rating by year

Numbers of complaint by region and month

Percent on time delivery

Average time response to customer service call

a PivotTable was created in

Average of Average of Ease of Average of Average of

Ease of use - Number of Responses

100 Service - Number of Responses

a) Dealer Satisfaction and End – User Satisfaction

Mean Satisfaction Ratings:

Standard Deviations of the Satisfaction Ratings:

End User Satisfaction:

Mean Satisfaction Ratings:

Standard Deviations of the Satisfaction Ratings:

b) Customer Survey Data

3.91595 3.72506 3.74736 4.45293 3.08833 3.11375 3.20270

d) Defects after delivery

Mean 826.3333 837.4167 785.9167 669.0833 496.25

e) Mower and Tractor Sales

Monthly Mower Sale

Industry Mower Total Sales:

Industry Mower Total

Monthly Tractor Sales:

Monthly Tractor Sale

Industry Total Tractor Sales:

Correlation between Monthly Mower Sales and Industry Mower Sales:

NA SA Europe Pacific Rim Chin World

Correlation between Monthly Tractor Sales and Industry Tractor Sales:

NA SA Europe Pacific Rim Chin World

You might also like