Chapter 4

Chapter -4
DATA ANALYSIS
To analyse the data gathered from the both company personnel’s, first their
demographical profile is presented in this chapter.
4.1 Demographical profile
First the company wise respondents are shown in table-4.1 and figure-4.1 as under:
Table-4.1: Company
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Binani Cement 40 56.3 56.3 56.3
Vikram Cement 31 43.7 43.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
45
40
40
35 31
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Binani Cement Vikram Cement
Series1 40 31
Figure-4.1: Company
The above table and figure revealed that 56.3 percent of the respondents were selected
from Biniani cement and rest from the Vikram cement.
59
Table-4.2: Age wise respondents
Valid Cumulative
Valid 15-25 8 11.3 11.3 11.3
26-45 35 49.3 49.3 60.6
>45 28 39.4 39.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
40
35
35
30
28
25
20
15
10
8
0
15-25 26-45 >45
Series1 8 35 28
Figure-4.2: Age wise respondents
The above table and figure revealed that the maximum respondents selected are from
the age of 26-45 years (49.3 percent) followed by above 45 years.
60
Table-4.3: Gender wise respondents
Valid Cumulative
Valid Male 51 71.8 71.8 71.8
Female 20 28.2 28.2 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
Male Female
20
51
Figure-4.3: Gender wise respondents
The above table and figure revealed that the maximum respondents selected are male
(71.8 percent) and other 28.2 percent were female.
61
Table-4.4: Qualification wise respondents
Valid Cumulative
Valid up to Graduate 28 39.4 39.4 39.4
Post- Graduate 31 43.7 43.7 83.1
Professional 12 16.9 16.9 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
35
31
30
28
25
20
15
12
10
0
up to Graduate Post- Graduate Professional
Series1 28 31 12
Figure-4.4: Qualification wise respondents
The above table and figure revealed that the maximum respondents selected are post
graduate (43.7 percent) followed by up to graduate 39.4 percent.
62
Table-4.4: Designation wise respondents
Valid Cumulative
Valid Supervisor 23 32.4 32.4 32.4
Manager 20 28.2 28.2 60.6
Top management 28 39.4 39.4 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
30
28
25
23
20
20
15
10
0
Supervisor Manager Top management
Figure-4.4: Designation wise respondents
The above table and figure revealed that the maximum respondents selected are from
the top management and officers (39.4 percent) followed by up to supervisor level
32.4 percent.
63
4.3 Material support and control
Table-4.5: Sufficient stock

Frequenc Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid Insurance spares 34 47.9 47.9 47.9
Standard replacement parts 17 23.9 23.9 71.8
Fasteners and fittings 9 12.7 12.7 84.5
Small tools 3 4.2 4.2 88.7
Maintenance and repair supplies 8 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
34
35
30
25
20 17
15
9
10 8
5 3
0
Insurance Standard Fasteners Small tools Maintenanc
spares replacement and fittings e and repair
parts supplies
Series1 34 17 9 3 8
Figure-4.5: Sufficient stock
The above table and figure revealed that the maximum respondents selected are
believed that stockroom has sufficiently stocked to meet day-to-day needs in the form
of insurance spares (47.9 percent) followed by up to standard replacement parts 23.9
percent.
64
Table-4.6: Perpetual inventory system is in place for Accounting
Valid Cumulative
Valid Computerized 27 38.0 38.0 38.0
Manual 30 42.3 42.3 80.3
No system 14 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 71 100.0 100.0
30
30
27
25
20
14
15
10
0
Computerized Manual No system
Series1 27 30 14
Figure-4.6: Perpetual inventory system is in place for Accounting
believed that perpetual inventory system in place which actively and systematically
records and reports to maintenance, purchasing and(PIS) accounting for use in the
management of inventory in the form of manual (42.3 percent) followed by up to
computerised parts 38 percent.
65
Table-4.7: Stores Inventory control practices are effective
Valid Cumulative
Valid Control increases with 35 49.3 49.3 49.3
inventory value using
ABC categorization
Free issue of low-value 36 50.7 50.7 100.0
items, such as fasteners,
is effectively integrated
Total 71 100.0 100.0
36
36
35.8
35.6
35.4
35.2
35
35
34.8
34.6
34.4
Control increases with Free issue of low-value
inventory value using ABC items, such as fasteners, is
categorization effectively integrated
Series1 35 36
Figure-4.7: Stores Inventory control practices are effective
believed that Stores Inventory control practices are effective for both the variables as
both are having almost same percent.
66
Table-4.8: Procedures exist for reserving and kiting stock parts for planned jobs
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Reservation/allocation 31 43.7 43.7 43.7
Critical spare part 40 56.3 56.3 100.0
lists exist for all-
important equipment
Total 71 100.0 100.0
45
40
40
35
31
30
25
20
15
10
0
Critical spare part lists exist for all-
Reservation/allocation
important equipment
Series1 31 40
Figure-4.8: Procedures exist for reserving and kiting stock parts for planned jobs
believed that Critical spare part lists exist for all-important equipment exists (56.3
percent) as Procedures exist for reserving and kiting stock parts for planned jobs.
67
Table-4.9: Reason for performing predictive maintenance
Valid Cumulative
Valid Monitoring detects degrading 15 21.1 21.1 21.1
conditions
Most cost failures result from 3 4.2 4.2 25.4
degrading conditions
Trending degradation permits 8 11.3 11.3 36.6
planning for repair
Trending degradation permits 45 63.4 63.4 100.0
scheduling repair
Total 71 100.0 100.0
45
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
15
8
10
3
5
0
Monitoring Most cost Trending Trending
detects failures result degradation degradation
degrading from degrading permits permits
conditions conditions planning for scheduling
repair repair
Series1 15 3 8 45
Figure-4.9: Reason for performing predictive maintenance
believed that Trending degradation permits scheduling repair (63.4 percent) is
the Reason for performing predictive maintenance.
68
Table-4.10: Concerns of predictive maintenance
Frequ Valid Cumulative
ency Percent Percent Percent
Vali Doing only predictive mainte- 7 9.9 9.9 9.9
d nance is living close to the edge
Takes courage to make the initial 16 22.5 22.5 32.4
calls for repairs

Must be an adjunct to a sound 48 67.6 67.6 100.0
preventive maintenance program

Total 71 100.0 100.0
48
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 16
15
7
10
5
0
Doing only Takes courage to Must be an adjunct
predictive mainte- make the initial to a sound
nance is living close calls for repairs preventive
to the edge maintenance
program
Series1 7 16 48
Table-4.10: Concerns of predictive maintenance
believed that must be an adjunct to a sound preventive maintenance program
(67.6 percent) is the Reason for Concerns of predictive maintenance.
69
Table-4.11:Time duration for considering a predictive maintenance program
Valid Cumulative
Valid After the preventive 21 29.6 29.6 29.6
maintenance program is
established
Only with corporate/ 50 70.4 70.4 100.0
management support
Total 71 100.0 100.0
50
50
45
40
35
30
21
25
20
15
10
0
After the preventive Only with corporate/
maintenance program is management support
established
Series1 21 50
Figure-4.11: Time duration for considering a predictive maintenance program
believed that only with corporate/ management support (70.4 percent) and suggested
Time duration is consider for a predictive maintenance program.
70
4.4 Testing the hypothesis
As per the objective (To identifying the current practices for material master, level
fixing and procurement in both the companies) the agreement of the respondents
related with the various areas are checked with the broader hypothesis. The following
hypothesis was developed:
H1: Maintaining the correct specification of the spares in the Material Master
for Physical Stockroom significantly helps to minimize the inventory.
To identify key variables in Material Master for Physical Stockroom multivariate

regression analysis has been used with SPSS-19 software and results were shown in
table 4.12 as under:
Table-4.12: Physical stockroom

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Physical_stock_1 2.5493 1.45198 71
Physical_stock_2 1.6479 .65680 71
Physical_stock_3 2.6197 1.04698 71
Physical_stock_4 2.1408 1.05959 71
Physical_stock_5 2.8732 1.14555 71
Physical_stock_6 1.9859 .66532 71
Physical_stock_7 3.2394 1.27015 71
Physical_stock_8 3.2958 1.46769 71
Physical_stock_9 2.0000 .92582 71
Physical_stock_10 1.6620 .47641 71
Physical_stock_11 3.3944 1.11456 71
Physical_stock_12 1.3099 .46573 71
Physical_stock_13 4.4789 .50311 71
71
Correlations
Physic PhysicaPhysicalPhysicalPhysical PhysicaPhysical Physic Physica
Why_P al_stoc l_stock _stock_ _stock_ _stock_ Physical l_stock _stock_ al_stoc l_stock Physical_ Physical_ Physical_
M k_1 _2 3 4 5 _stock_6 _7 8 k_9 _10 stock_11 stock_12 stock_13
Pe Why_PM 1.000 -.205 -.155 -.094 -.117 .157 .265 .266 .265 .025 .196 .284 .281 -.086
ars Physical_stock_1 -.205 1.000 .236 -.114 .302 -.481 -.598 -.576 -.533 .064 -.141 -.595 -.382 .202
on Physical_stock_2 -.155 .236 1.000 .031 .113 -.326 -.208 -.377 -.320 .399 -.295 -.139 -.059 .128
Co Physical_stock_3 -.094 -.114 .031 1.000 .384 .031 .136 .188 .186 .029 -.233 .057 -.194 -.110
rre Physical_stock_4 -.117 .302 .113 .384 1.000 -.138 -.342 -.206 -.101 -.073 -.357 -.084 -.437 .086
lati Physical_stock_5 .157 -.481 -.326 .031 -.138 1.000 .616 .856 .796 .027 .234 .364 .396 -.265
on Physical_stock_6 .265 -.598 -.208 .136 -.342 .616 1.000 .782 .765 .232 .300 .508 .660 -.150
Physical_stock_7 .266 -.576 -.377 .188 -.206 .856 .782 1.000 .912 .036 .372 .538 .573 -.271
Physical_stock_8 .265 -.533 -.320 .186 -.101 .796 .765 .912 1.000 .053 .472 .478 .470 -.098
Physical_stock_9 .025 .064 .399 .029 -.073 .027 .232 .036 .053 1.000 -.130 -.097 .199 .276
Physical_stock_10 .196 -.141 -.295 -.233 -.357 .234 .300 .372 .472 -.130 1.000 .335 .479 -.149
Physical_stock_11 .284 -.595 -.139 .057 -.084 .364 .508 .538 .478 -.097 .335 1.000 .532 -.367
Physical_stock_12 .281 -.382 -.059 -.194 -.437 .396 .660 .573 .470 .199 .479 .532 1.000 -.277
Physical_stock_13 -.086 .202 .128 -.110 .086 -.265 -.150 -.271 -.098 .276 -.149 -.367 -.277 1.000
Sig Why_PM . .043 .098 .219 .165 .095 .013 .012 .013 .418 .050 .008 .009 .237
72
. Physical_stock_1 .043 . .024 .171 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .299 .121 .000 .001 .046
(1- Physical_stock_2 .098 .024 . .399 .173 .003 .041 .001 .003 .000 .006 .123 .314 .143
tail Physical_stock_3 .219 .171 .399 . .000 .400 .129 .059 .060 .404 .025 .319 .052 .180
ed) Physical_stock_4 .165 .005 .173 .000 . .125 .002 .043 .202 .273 .001 .243 .000 .238
Physical_stock_5 .095 .000 .003 .400 .125 . .000 .000 .000 .412 .025 .001 .000 .013
Physical_stock_6 .013 .000 .041 .129 .002 .000 . .000 .000 .026 .005 .000 .000 .105
Physical_stock_7 .012 .000 .001 .059 .043 .000 .000 . .000 .381 .001 .000 .000 .011
Physical_stock_8 .013 .000 .003 .060 .202 .000 .000 .000 . .332 .000 .000 .000 .209
Physical_stock_9 .418 .299 .000 .404 .273 .412 .026 .381 .332 . .141 .211 .048 .010
Physical_stock_10 .050 .121 .006 .025 .001 .025 .005 .001 .000 .141 . .002 .000 .107
Physical_stock_11 .008 .000 .123 .319 .243 .001 .000 .000 .000 .211 .002 . .000 .001
Physical_stock_12 .009 .001 .314 .052 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .048 .000 .000 . .010
Physical_stock_13 .237 .046 .143 .180 .238 .013 .105 .011 .209 .010 .107 .001 .010 .
N Why_PM 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_1 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_2 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_3 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_4 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_5 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
73
Physical_stock_6 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_8 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_9 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_10 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_11 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_12 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Physical_stock_13 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
74
Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Physical_ . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
stock_11 .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: Why_PM
Model Summary
Std. Change Statistics
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .284a .081 .067 1.18824 .081 6.056 1 69 .016
a. Predictors: (Constant), Physical_stock_11
ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 8.550 1 8.550 6.056 .016a
Residual 97.421 69 1.412
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Physical_stock_11
b. Dependent Variable: Why_PM
Coefficientsa
Standardiz
Unstandardiz ed Collinearit
ed Coefficien y
Coefficients ts Correlations Statistics
Std. Zero- Part Par Tole VI
Sig
Model B Error Beta t . order ial t rance F
1 (Constant) 2.105 .455 4.62 .00
6 0
Physical_stock .314 .127 .284 2.46 .01 .284 .284 .28 1.000 1.0
_11 1 6 4 00
75
Excluded Variablesb
Collinearity Statistics
Minimu
Partial m
Beta Correl Toleranc Toleranc
Model In t Sig. ation e VIF e
1 Physical_stock_1 -.055a -.382 .703 -.046 .646 1.547 .646
a
Physical_stock_2 -.118 -1.011 .316 -.122 .981 1.020 .981
Physical_stock_3 -.110a -.951 .345 -.115 .997 1.003 .997
Physical_stock_4 -.094a -.809 .421 -.098 .993 1.007 .993
Physical_stock_5 .062a .498 .620 .060 .867 1.153 .867
Physical_stock_6 .162a 1.214 .229 .146 .741 1.349 .741
Physical_stock_7 .160a 1.169 .246 .140 .711 1.407 .711
Physical_stock_8 .167a 1.277 .206 .153 .772 1.296 .772
Physical_stock_9 .053a .455 .650 .055 .991 1.009 .991
Physical_stock_10 .114a .929 .356 .112 .888 1.127 .888
Physical_stock_12 .182a 1.340 .185 .160 .717 1.394 .717
a
Physical_stock_13 .021 .165 .870 .020 .865 1.156 .865
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Physical_stock_11
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Condition Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Physical_stock_11
1 1 1.951 1.000 .02 .02
2 .049 6.293 .98 .98
Result
The regression results show that:
R= 0.284
Adjusted R square=6.7 percent
Dependent Variable= Why_PM
76
Predictors= Physical_stock_11
Model fit ANOVA=6.056
Significant=0. .016a
Result: model is fit to predict future.
As per the above result points it can be revealed that only one variable
Physical_stock_11 is predicting the changes in the Maintaining the correct
specification of the spares in the Material Master for Physical Stockroom to
minimize the inventory.
Further, the agreement of the respondents related with the various areas is checked
with the broader hypothesis. The following hypothesis was developed:
for Importance significantly helps to minimize the inventory.
To identify key variables in Material Master for Importance multivariate regression

analysis has been used with SPSS-19 software and results were shown in table 4.13
as under:
Table-4.13: Multiple regression analysis for importance

Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Important_1 4.0423 .61960 71
Important_2 4.2254 .68028 71
Important_3 3.6479 1.12248 71
Important_4 4.3239 .55484 71
Important_5 3.7183 1.07149 71
Important_6 4.3944 .78338 71
Important_7 3.2676 1.08177 71
Important_8 2.7183 1.07149 71
Important_9 2.8028 1.15412 71
Important_10 2.5634 1.14308 71
Important_11 3.0141 1.11474 71
77
Correlations
Why_ Importa Importa Importa Importa Importa Importa Importa Importa Importa Important Important
PM nt_1 nt_2 nt_3 nt_4 nt_5 nt_6 nt_7 nt_8 nt_9 _10 _11
Pe Why_PM 1.000 .122 .107 -.018 -.165 -.007 .048 .191 .210 .285 .256 .207
ars Important_1 .122 1.000 .282 .248 -.040 .492 .171 .281 .276 .351 .611 .496
on Important_2 .107 .282 1.000 .218 .182 .128 .233 .480 .578 .112 .257 .486
Co Important_3 -.018 .248 .218 1.000 .186 .344 .063 -.004 .083 .365 .157 .130
rre Important_4 -.165 -.040 .182 .186 1.000 .300 .293 .092 -.109 -.278 -.404 .085
lati Important_5 -.007 .492 .128 .344 .300 1.000 .594 .115 -.095 .105 .120 .207
on Important_6 .048 .171 .233 .063 .293 .594 1.000 .413 .100 .245 .083 .370
Important_7 .191 .281 .480 -.004 .092 .115 .413 1.000 .719 .466 .454 .826
Important_8 .210 .276 .578 .083 -.109 -.095 .100 .719 1.000 .532 .551 .769
Important_9 .285 .351 .112 .365 -.278 .105 .245 .466 .532 1.000 .768 .546
Important_10 .256 .611 .257 .157 -.404 .120 .083 .454 .551 .768 1.000 .431
Important_11 .207 .496 .486 .130 .085 .207 .370 .826 .769 .546 .431 1.000
Sig Why_PM . .156 .186 .440 .084 .478 .344 .055 .039 .008 .015 .042
. Important_1 .156 . .009 .019 .369 .000 .077 .009 .010 .001 .000 .000
(1- Important_2 .186 .009 . .034 .064 .145 .025 .000 .000 .176 .015 .000
tail Important_3 .440 .019 .034 . .060 .002 .302 .488 .247 .001 .096 .141
78
ed) Important_4 .084 .369 .064 .060 . .006 .006 .224 .184 .009 .000 .241
Important_5 .478 .000 .145 .002 .006 . .000 .169 .215 .193 .160 .042
Important_6 .344 .077 .025 .302 .006 .000 . .000 .203 .020 .245 .001
Important_7 .055 .009 .000 .488 .224 .169 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000
Important_8 .039 .010 .000 .247 .184 .215 .203 .000 . .000 .000 .000
Important_9 .008 .001 .176 .001 .009 .193 .020 .000 .000 . .000 .000
Important_10 .015 .000 .015 .096 .000 .160 .245 .000 .000 .000 . .000
Important_11 .042 .000 .000 .141 .241 .042 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .
N Why_PM 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_1 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_2 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_3 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_4 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_5 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_6 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_8 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_9 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_10 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Important_11 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
79
Variables Variables
1 Important_9 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .285a .081 .068 1.18775 .081 6.117 1 69 .016
a. Predictors: (Constant), Important_9
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 8.630 1 8.630 6.117 .016a
Residual 97.342 69 1.411
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Important_9
Coefficientsa
Standard
Unstandardiz ized
ed Coefficie Sig Collinearit
Model Coefficients nts t . Correlations y Statistics
80
Zero
- Tole
Std. orde Partia Par r
B Error Beta r l t ance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.316 .372 6.21 .00
9 0
Important_9 .304 .123 .285 2.47 .01 .285 .285 .28 1.00 1.00
3 6 5 0 0
Excluded Variablesb
Beta Partial Minimum
Model In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance VIF Tolerance
1 Important_1 .024a .197 .845 .024 .876 1.141 .876
a
Important_2 .076 .656 .514 .079 .987 1.013 .987
Important_3 -.141a -1.142 .257 -.137 .867 1.153 .867
Important_4 -.093a -.771 .443 -.093 .923 1.084 .923
Important_5 -.037a -.317 .753 -.038 .989 1.011 .989
Important_6 -.023a -.191 .849 -.023 .940 1.064 .940
Important_7 .074a .564 .574 .068 .783 1.278 .783
Important_8 .081a .593 .555 .072 .717 1.395 .717
Important_10 .091a .502 .617 .061 .411 2.434 .411
Important_11 .072a .521 .604 .063 .702 1.425 .702
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Important_9
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Important_9
1 1 1.926 1.000 .04 .04
2 .074 5.088 .96 .96
81
Result

R= 0.285
Predictors= Important_9
Significant=0. .016a
As per the above result points it can be revealed that only one variable Important_9
is predicting the changes in the Maintaining the correct specification of the spares in
the Material Master for Importance to minimize the inventory.
for Visual inspection significantly helps to minimize the inventory.
To identify key variables in Material Master for Visual inspection multivariate

regression analysis has been used with SPSS-19 software and results were shown in
table 4.14 as under:
Table-4.14: Multiple regression analysis for Visual inspection

Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Visual_insp_1 2.3099 1.00842 71
Visual_insp_2 2.8310 1.13372 71
Visual_insp_3 4.3803 .48891 71
Visual_insp_4 2.9155 1.16798 71
Visual_insp_5 4.3380 .55917 71
Visual_insp_6 4.3099 .80341 71
82
Correlations
Visual Visual
Why_ _insp_ _insp_ Visual_i Visual_i Visual_i Visual_i
PM 1 2 nsp_3 nsp_4 nsp_5 nsp_6
Pea Why_PM 1.00 -.008 .267 -.037 .149 -.084 -.054
rson Visual_insp_1 -.008 1.00 .046 .250 .023 .242 .003
Cor Visual_insp_2 .267 .046 1.000 -.269 .928 .069 .027
rela Visual_insp_3 -.037 .250 -.269 1.000 -.318 .098 .241
tion Visual_insp_4 .149 .023 .928 -.318 1.000 .088 .059
Visual_insp_5 -.084 .242 .069 .098 .088 1.000 .304
Visual_insp_6 -.054 .003 .027 .241 .059 .304 1.000
Sig. Why_PM . .473 .012 .379 .107 .242 .328
(1- Visual_insp_1 .473 . .350 .018 .426 .021 .489
taile Visual_insp_2 .012 .350 . .012 .000 .284 .412
d) Visual_insp_3 .379 .018 .012 . .003 .208 .021
Visual_insp_4 .107 .426 .000 .003 . .232 .313
Visual_insp_5 .242 .021 .284 .208 .232 . .005
Visual_insp_6 .328 .489 .412 .021 .313 .005 .
N Why_PM 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_1 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_2 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_3 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_4 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_5 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Visual_insp_6 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Variables Variables
1 Visual_insp_2 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter
<= .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
83
2 Visual_insp_4 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .267a .071 .058 1.19444 .071 5.278 1 69 .025
2 .374b .140 .115 1.15771 .069 5.448 1 68 .023
a. Predictors: (Constant), Visual_insp_2
b. Predictors: (Constant), Visual_insp_2, Visual_insp_4
ANOVAc
Sum of
1 Regression 7.530 1 7.530 5.278 .025a
Residual 98.442 69 1.427
Total 105.972 70
2 Regression 14.832 2 7.416 5.533 .006b
Residual 91.140 68 1.340
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Visual_insp_2
b. Predictors: (Constant), Visual_insp_2, Visual_insp_4
c. Dependent Variable: Why_PM
Coefficientsa
Standar
Unstandardiz dized
ed Coeffic Collinearit
Model Coefficients ients t Sig. Correlations y Statistics
84
Zero
- Tole
Std. orde Parti Par r
B Error Beta r al t ance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.350 .384 6.126 .000
Visual_insp .289 .126 .267 2.297 .025 .26 .267 .26 1.00 1.00
_2 7 7 0 0
2 (Constant) 2.505 .378 6.632 .000
Visual_insp .997 .327 .919 3.050 .003 .26 .347 .34 .139 7.17
_2 7 3 1
Visual_insp -.741 .317 -.703 -2.334 .023 .14 -.272 -.26 .139 7.17
_4 9 3 1
Excluded Variablesc
1 Visual_insp_1 -.021a -.177 .860 -.021 .998 1.002 .998
Visual_insp_3 .037a .307 .760 .037 .928 1.078 .928
Visual_insp_4 -.703a -2.334 .023 -.272 .139 7.171 .139
Visual_insp_5 -.103a -.885 .379 -.107 .995 1.005 .995
a
Visual_insp_6 -.061 -.522 .603 -.063 .999 1.001 .999
2 Visual_insp_1 -.035b -.311 .757 -.038 .995 1.005 .139
Visual_insp_3 -.015b -.128 .899 -.016 .894 1.119 .134
Visual_insp_5 -.086b -.762 .449 -.093 .991 1.009 .139
Visual_insp_6 -.038b -.330 .742 -.040 .991 1.009 .138
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Visual_insp_2
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Visual_insp_2, Visual_insp_4
c. Dependent Variable: Why_PM
Mode Dimensio Eigenvalu Conditio Variance Proportions
85
l n e n Index (Constant Visual_insp_ Visual_insp_
) 2 4
1 1 1.929 1.000 .04 .04
2 .071 5.221 .96 .96
2 1 2.899 1.000 .01 .00 .00
2 .091 5.651 .99 .03 .03
3 .010 17.131 .00 .96 .96
Result
R= 0.374
Predictors= Visual_insp_2, Visual_insp_4
Significant=0..006a
As per the above result points it can be revealed that only two variables
Visual_insp_2 and Visual_insp_4 are predicting the changes in the Maintaining the
correct specification of the spares in the Material Master for Visual inspection to
for Computerization Assessment significantly helps to minimize the
inventory.
To identify key variables in Material Master for Computerization Assessment

multivariate regression analysis has been used with SPSS-19 software and results
were shown in table 4.15 as under:
86
Table-4.15: Multiple regression analysis for Computerization Assessment
Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Comp_assess_1 4.2958 .76335 71
Comp_assess_2 4.3099 .90383 71
Comp_assess_3 4.1408 1.03228 71
Comp_assess_4 3.0282 1.23024 71
Comp_assess_5 2.8592 1.24552 71
Comp_assess_6 3.0141 1.28166 71
Comp_assess_7 3.2113 1.34074 71
Comp_assess_8 2.8169 1.35552 71
Correlations
Com Com Com Co
Comp Comp Comp p_as p_as p_as mp_ Comp
Why_ _asse _asse _asse sess sess sess asse _asses
PM ss_1 ss_2 ss_3 _4 _5 _6 ss_7 s_8
Pe Why_PM 1.000 -.069 -.086 .048 .355 .370 .297 .195 .242
ars Comp_assess_1 -.069 1.000 .134 .236 -.176 -.241 -.077 -.104 -.113
on Comp_assess_2 -.086 .134 1.000 .672 -.072 -.113 -.263 .098 .152
Co Comp_assess_3 .048 .236 .672 1.000 .166 .049 -.077 -.063 .090
rre Comp_assess_4 .355 -.176 -.072 .166 1.00 .916 .870 .759 .834
lati Comp_assess_5 .370 -.241 -.113 .049 .916 1.00 .887 .762 .805
on Comp_assess_6 .297 -.077 -.263 -.077 .870 .887 1.00 .805 .824
Comp_assess_7 .195 -.104 .098 -.063 .759 .762 .805 1.00 .894
Comp_assess_8 .242 -.113 .152 .090 .834 .805 .824 .894 1.000
Sig Why_PM . .283 .237 .344 .001 .001 .006 .052 .021
. Comp_assess_1 .283 . .132 .024 .071 .021 .261 .194 .175
(1- Comp_assess_2 .237 .132 . .000 .275 .174 .013 .207 .103
tail Comp_assess_3 .344 .024 .000 . .084 .342 .261 .301 .227
ed) Comp_assess_4 .001 .071 .275 .084 . .000 .000 .000 .000
Comp_assess_5 .001 .021 .174 .342 .000 . .000 .000 .000
87
Comp_assess_6 .006 .261 .013 .261 .000 .000 . .000 .000
Comp_assess_7 .052 .194 .207 .301 .000 .000 .000 . .000
Comp_assess_8 .021 .175 .103 .227 .000 .000 .000 .000 .
N Why_PM 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_1 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_2 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_3 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_4 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_5 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_6 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Comp_assess_8 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
Variables Variables
1 Comp_assess_5 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .370a .137 .124 1.15134 .137 10.944 1 69 .001
a. Predictors: (Constant), Comp_assess_5
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 14.507 1 14.507 10.944 .001a
88
Residual 91.465 69 1.326
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Comp_assess_5
Coefficientsa
Standa
Unstandardiz rdized Collinearit
ed Coeffi y
Coefficients cients Correlations Statistics
Zer
o- Tole
Std. ord Parti Par r
Model B Error Beta t Sig. er al t ance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.124 .344 6.171 .000
Comp_assess_5 .365 .110 .370 3.308 .001 .37 .370 .37 1.00 1.00
Excluded Variablesb
Partial Minimum
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance VIF Tolerance
1 Comp_assess_1 .021a .183 .855 .022 .942 1.062 .942
Comp_assess_2 -.045a -.398 .692 -.048 .987 1.013 .987
Comp_assess_3 .030a .270 .788 .033 .998 1.002 .998
Comp_assess_4 .102a .364 .717 .044 .160 6.235 .160
Comp_assess_6 -.145a -.595 .554 -.072 .213 4.698 .213
Comp_assess_7 -.209a - .229 -.146 .419 2.388 .419
1.213
Comp_assess_8 -.160a -.849 .399 -.102 .352 2.845 .352
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Comp_assess_5
89
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Comp_assess_5
1 1 1.918 1.000 .04 .04
2 .082 4.831 .96 .96
Result
R= 0.370
Predictors= Comp_assess_5
Significant=0. 001a
As per the above result points it can be revealed that only one variables
Comp_assess_5 is predicting the changes in the Maintaining the correct
specification of the spares in the Material Master for Computerization Assessment to
H1: Centralised stock reports for spare parts by Tracking measures to improve
store part inventory significantly minimize the inventory.
To identify key variables in Material Master for Computerization Assessment

multivariate regression analysis has been used with SPSS-19 software and results
were shown in table 4.16 as under:
90
Table-4.16: Multiple regression analysis for Computerization Assessment
Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Track_meas_1 2.9296 1.49594 71
Track_meas_2 2.8873 1.39948 71
Track_meas_3 1.6901 .76703 71
Track_meas_4 1.6901 .97967 71
Correlations
Why_P Track_mea Track_mea Track_mea Track_mea
M s_1 s_2 s_3 s_4
Pear Why_PM 1.000 .301 .326 -.095 -.217
son Track_meas_1 .301 1.000 .911 -.380 -.483
Corr Track_meas_2 .326 .911 1.000 -.339 -.401
elati Track_meas_3 -.095 -.380 -.339 1.000 .688
on Track_meas_4 -.217 -.483 -.401 .688 1.000
Sig. Why_PM . .005 .003 .215 .035
(1- Track_meas_1 .005 . .000 .001 .000
taile Track_meas_2 .003 .000 . .002 .000
d) Track_meas_3 .215 .001 .002 . .000
Track_meas_4 .035 .000 .000 .000 .
N Why_PM 71 71 71 71 71
Track_meas_1 71 71 71 71 71
Track_meas_2 71 71 71 71 71
Track_meas_3 71 71 71 71 71
Track_meas_4 71 71 71 71 71
Variables Variables
1 Track_meas_2 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
91
Variables Variables
1 Track_meas_2 . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .326a .107 .094 1.17138 .107 8.232 1 69 .005
a. Predictors: (Constant), Track_meas_2
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 11.295 1 11.295 8.232 .005a
Residual 94.676 69 1.372
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Track_meas_2
Coefficientsa
Standardize
Unstandardiz d Collinearit
ed Coefficient y
Coefficients s Correlations Statistics
Zero
-
Std. Sig orde Partia Toler
Model B Error Beta t . r l Part ance VIF
1 (Constant) 2.340 .321 7.30 .00
92
Track_meas .287 .100 .326 2.86 .00 .32 .326 .32 1.00 1.00
_2 9 5 6 6
Excluded Variablesb
1 Track_meas_1 .025a .089 .929 .011 .171 5.850 .171
Track_meas_3 .018a .145 .885 .018 .885 1.130 .885
Track_meas_4 -.102a -.821 .415 -.099 .839 1.192 .839
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Track_meas_2
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Track_meas_2
1 1 1.901 1.000 .05 .05
2 .099 4.384 .95 .95
Result
R= 0.326
Predictors= Track_meas_2
Significant=0. 005a
Track_meas_2is predicting the changes in Centralised stock reports for spare parts
by Tracking measures to improve store part inventory for minimize the inventory
cost.
93
H1: Identification of slow moving, fast moving, rarely moving and

obsolescence as Rules for effective spare part management helps to
To identify key variables in movement of stock multivariate regression analysis has

been used with SPSS-19 software and results were shown in table 4.17 as under:
Table-4.17: Multiple regression analysis for movement of stock

Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Rule_effec_mgt_1 2.3099 .85509 71
Rule_effec_mgt_2 1.7606 1.11438 71
Rule_effec_mgt_3 1.5915 .94985 71
Rule_effec_mgt_4 1.8451 1.07767 71
Rule_effec_mgt_5 1.9296 .94603 71
Rule_effec_mgt_6 2.1127 1.07636 71
Rule_effec_mgt_7 1.9437 .84325 71
94
Correlations
Why_P Rule_effec Rule_effec_m Rule_effec_m Rule_effec_m Rule_effec_m Rule_effec_m Rule_effec_m
M _mgt_1 gt_2 gt_3 gt_4 gt_5 gt_6 gt_7
Pe Why_PM 1.000 -.159 -.210 -.270 -.228 -.211 -.069 -.211
ars Rule_effec_mgt_1 -.159 1.000 .769 .545 .719 .434 .396 .579
on Rule_effec_mgt_2 -.210 .769 1.000 .730 .647 .512 .559 .457
Co Rule_effec_mgt_3 -.270 .545 .730 1.000 .537 .413 .633 .613
rre Rule_effec_mgt_4 -.228 .719 .647 .537 1.000 .311 .237 .210
lati Rule_effec_mgt_5 -.211 .434 .512 .413 .311 1.000 .723 .371
on Rule_effec_mgt_6 -.069 .396 .559 .633 .237 .723 1.000 .637
Rule_effec_mgt_7 -.211 .579 .457 .613 .210 .371 .637 1.000
Sig. Why_PM . .093 .040 .011 .028 .039 .285 .039
(1- Rule_effec_mgt_1 .093 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tail Rule_effec_mgt_2 .040 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
ed) Rule_effec_mgt_3 .011 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000
Rule_effec_mgt_4 .028 .000 .000 .000 . .004 .023 .039
Rule_effec_mgt_5 .039 .000 .000 .000 .004 . .000 .001
Rule_effec_mgt_6 .285 .000 .000 .000 .023 .000 . .000
Rule_effec_mgt_7 .039 .000 .000 .000 .039 .001 .000 .
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
95
Variables Variables
1 Rule_effec_m . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
gt_3 .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .270a .073 .060 1.19321 .073 5.431 1 69 .023
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rule_effec_mgt_3
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 7.733 1 7.733 5.431 .023a
Residual 98.239 69 1.424
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Rule_effec_mgt_3
Coefficientsa
Standardiz
Unstandardi ed Collineari
zed Coefficien ty
Coefficients ts Correlations Statistics
Zer
o- Tole
Std. Sig orde Parti Pa r
Model B Error Beta t . r al rt ance VIF
1 (Constant) 3.726 .278 13.41 .00
4 0
Rule_effec_mg -.350 .150 -.270 -2.33 .02 - -.270 -.2 1.00 1.0
t_3 3 .270 7 0
96
Excluded Variablesb
Minimu
Partial m
Beta Correlat Toleranc Toleranc
Model In t Sig. ion e VIF e
1 Rule_effec_mgt_1 -.017a -.122 .904 -.015 .703 1.423 .703
a
Rule_effec_mgt_2 -.027 -.158 .875 -.019 .468 2.138 .468
Rule_effec_mgt_4 -.116a -.843 .402 -.102 .711 1.406 .711
Rule_effec_mgt_5 -.119a -.937 .352 -.113 .830 1.205 .830
Rule_effec_mgt_6 .171a 1.142 .257 .137 .600 1.667 .600
Rule_effec_mgt_7 -.073a -.493 .623 -.060 .624 1.602 .624
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Rule_effec_mgt_3
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Rule_effec_mgt_3
1 1 1.860 1.000 .07 .07
2 .140 3.649 .93 .93
Result
R= 0.270
Adjusted R square=6 percent
Predictors= Rule_effec_mgt_3
Significant=0. 023a
Rule_effec_mgt_3 is predicting the slow moving, fast moving, rarely moving and
97
obsolescence as Rules for effective spare part management helps to minimize the
inventory
H1: Identification of Important points regarding Predictive management for

effective spare part management helps to minimize the inventory.
To identify key variables in movement of stock multivariate regression analysis has

been used with SPSS-19 software and results were shown in table 4.18 as under:
Table-4.18: Multiple regression analysis for effective spare part management

Why_PM 3.1690 1.23040 71
Imp_ProMgt_1 1.9296 .89959 71
Imp_ProMgt_2 2.6761 .77043 71
Imp_ProMgt_3 2.8873 1.07636 71
Imp_ProMgt_4 2.2394 .88584 71
Imp_ProMgt_5 2.5915 .97947 71
Imp_ProMgt_6 2.3521 1.07036 71
Imp_ProMgt_7 1.9155 1.03849 71
Imp_ProMgt_8 2.6761 1.36041 71
Imp_ProMgt_9 2.3521 1.01557 71
Imp_ProMgt_10 1.8169 1.04622 71
Correlations
Imp
_Pr Imp_ Imp_ Imp_ Imp_ Imp_ Imp_ Imp_ Imp_
Wh oM Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Pro Imp_
y_P gt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ Mgt_ ProM
M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 gt_10
Pea Why 1.00 - .119 .122 -.208 -.226 -.154 -.145 .076 -.014 -.275
rso _PM 0 .00
n 2
98
Cor Imp_ - 1.0 -.219 .331 -.050 .016 .071 .590 .180 .200 .214
rela ProM .002 00
tion gt_1
Imp_ .119 - 1.00 .041 .304 .220 .296 -.320 .130 .458 -.039
ProM .21 0
gt_2 9
Imp_ .122 .33 .041 1.00 -.091 -.220 .010 .081 .638 .102 -.006
ProM 1 0
gt_3
Imp_ - - .304 -.091 1.00 .542 .723 .286 -.065 .572 .464
ProM .208 .05 0
gt_4 0
Imp_ - .01 .220 -.220 .542 1.00 .657 .218 -.015 .290 .372
ProM .226 6 0
gt_5
Imp_ - .07 .296 .010 .723 .657 1.00 .348 .178 .725 .581
ProM .154 1 0
gt_6
Imp_ - .59 -.320 .081 .286 .218 .348 1.00 .061 .272 .617
ProM .145 0 0
gt_7
Imp_ .076 .18 .130 .638 -.065 -.015 .178 .061 1.00 .446 .369
ProM 0 0
gt_8
Imp_ - .20 .458 .102 .572 .290 .725 .272 .446 1.00 .599
ProM .014 0 0
gt_9
Imp_ - .21 -.039 -.006 .464 .372 .581 .617 .369 .599 1.000
ProM .275 4
gt_10
Sig Why . .49 .162 .154 .041 .029 .099 .114 .265 .454 .010
. _PM 3
99
(1- Imp_ .493 . .033 .002 .339 .449 .279 .000 .067 .048 .037
tail ProM
ed) gt_1
Imp_ .162 .03 . .366 .005 .033 .006 .003 .140 .000 .373
ProM 3
gt_2
Imp_ .154 .00 .366 . .225 .032 .467 .251 .000 .198 .481
ProM 2
gt_3
Imp_ .041 .33 .005 .225 . .000 .000 .008 .295 .000 .000
ProM 9
gt_4
Imp_ .029 .44 .033 .032 .000 . .000 .034 .451 .007 .001
ProM 9
gt_5
Imp_ .099 .27 .006 .467 .000 .000 . .001 .069 .000 .000
ProM 9
gt_6
Imp_ .114 .00 .003 .251 .008 .034 .001 . .306 .011 .000
ProM 0
gt_7
Imp_ .265 .06 .140 .000 .295 .451 .069 .306 . .000 .001
ProM 7
gt_8
Imp_ .454 .04 .000 .198 .000 .007 .000 .011 .000 . .000
ProM 8
gt_9
Imp_ .010 .03 .373 .481 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .
ProM 7
gt_10
N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
100
Variables Variables
1 Imp_ProM . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=
gt_10 .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
Model Summary
Adjusted Error of R
1 .275a .076 .062 1.19141 .076 5.656 1 69 .020
a. Predictors: (Constant), Imp_ProMgt_10
ANOVAb
Sum of
1 Regression 8.029 1 8.029 5.656 .020a
Residual 97.943 69 1.419
Total 105.972 70
a. Predictors: (Constant), Imp_ProMgt_10
Coefficientsa
Standardi
Unstandardi zed
zed Coefficie Collinearity
Coefficients nts Correlations Statistics
Zer
o-
Std. Sig ord Parti Par Toleran
Model B Error Beta t . er al t ce VIF
1 (Constant) 3.757 .285 13.1 .00
89 0
101
Imp_ProMgt -.324 .136 -.275 - .02 - - - 1.000 1.00
_10 2.37 0 .27 .275 .27 0
8 5 5
Excluded Variablesb
1 Imp_ProMgt_1 .060a .500 .619 .061 .954 1.048 .954
Imp_ProMgt_2 .108a .934 .354 .113 .998 1.002 .998
Imp_ProMgt_3 .121a 1.045 .300 .126 1.000 1.000 1.000
Imp_ProMgt_4 -.102a -.781 .438 -.094 .785 1.275 .785
Imp_ProMgt_5 -.144a - .251 -.139 .862 1.161 .862
1.157
Imp_ProMgt_6 .009a .060 .952 .007 .662 1.511 .662
Imp_ProMgt_7 .040a .268 .790 .032 .620 1.614 .620
Imp_ProMgt_8 .206a 1.672 .099 .199 .864 1.158 .864
Imp_ProMgt_9 .236a 1.650 .104 .196 .641 1.561 .641
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Imp_ProMgt_10
Variance Proportions
Condition Imp_ProMgt_1
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) 0
1 1 1.868 1.000 .07 .07
2 .132 3.764 .93 .93
Result
R= 0.275
102
Predictors= Imp_ProMgt_10
Significant=0.020a
Imp_ProMgt_10 is predicting important points regarding Predictive management
for effective spare part management helps to minimize the inventory.
4.5 Significance and Measurement of differences

between selected companies
As per the research objective (to measure systematic proactive approach adopted by
companies for predicting the requirement of spare parts) Independent sample t Test
was carried out to measure the significance of gap between the categories of identified
variables of Binani and Vikram cement. Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:
H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

predict the requirement of spare parts for physical stock between Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement.
To test the above hypothesis and measure the gap for above variable between Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement the independent T test has been used on various
variables with SPSS-19 software and the results are as under:
Table-4.19: Measuring gap by independent sample t test

Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
Company N Mean Deviation Mean
Physical_stock_1 1.00 40 2.9000 1.58195 .25013
2.00 31 2.0968 1.13592 .20402
103
Physical_stock_2 1.00 40 1.3750 .58562 .09259
2.00 31 2.0000 .57735 .10370
Physical_stock_3 1.00 40 2.4000 .92819 .14676
2.00 31 2.9032 1.13592 .20402
Physical_stock_4 1.00 40 2.1750 1.05945 .16751
2.00 31 2.0968 1.07563 .19319
Physical_stock_5 1.00 40 2.8250 1.35661 .21450
2.00 31 2.9355 .81386 .14617
Physical_stock_6 1.00 40 1.9500 .81492 .12885
2.00 31 2.0323 .40693 .07309
Physical_stock_7 1.00 40 3.2500 1.48064 .23411
2.00 31 3.2258 .95602 .17171
Physical_stock_8 1.00 40 3.3000 1.71270 .27080
2.00 31 3.2903 1.10132 .19780
Physical_stock_9 1.00 40 1.5250 .50574 .07996
2.00 31 2.6129 .98919 .17766
Physical_stock_10 1.00 40 1.8000 .40510 .06405
2.00 31 1.4839 .50800 .09124
Physical_stock_11 1.00 40 3.3750 1.03000 .16286
2.00 31 3.4194 1.23218 .22131
Physical_stock_12 1.00 40 1.3250 .47434 .07500
2.00 31 1.2903 .46141 .08287
Physical_stock_13 1.00 40 4.4750 .50574 .07996
2.00 31 4.4839 .50800 .09124
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variance
s t-test for Equality of Means
104
95%
Confidence
Sig. Std. Interval of
(2- Mean Error the
Si taile Differe Differe Difference
F g. t df d) nce nce Lower Upper
Phys Equal variances 8.74 .00 2.38 69 .020 .80323 .33632 .1322 1.474
ical_ assumed 0 4 8 8 17
stoc Equal variances 2.48 68. .015 .80323 .32278 .1592 1.447
k_1 not assumed 8 652 4 21
Phys Equal variances 6.71 .01 - 69 .000 -.62500 .13927 - -
ical_ assumed 2 2 4.48 .9028 .3471
stoc 8 4 6
k_2 Equal variances -4.4 65. .000 -.62500 .13902 -.902 -.347
not assumed 96 084 63 37
Phys Equal variances .084 .77 -2.0 69 .044 -.50323 .24496 -.991 -.014
ical_ assumed 3 54 90 55
stoc Equal variances - 57. .050 -.50323 .25132 -1.00 -.000
k_3 not assumed 2.00 282 643 02
2
Phys Equal variances .086 .77 .307 69 .760 .07823 .25520 -.430 .5873
ical_ assumed 1 89 4
stoc Equal variances .306 64. .761 .07823 .25570 -.432 .5890
k_4 not assumed 168 57 2
Phys Equal variances 14.5 .00 -.401 69 .690 -.11048 .27577 - .4396
ical_ assumed 11 0 .6606 7
stoc 3
k_5 Equal variances -.426 65. .672 -.11048 .25957 -.628 .4078
not assumed 320 83 6
Phys Equal variances 22.7 .00 -.514 69 .609 -.08226 .16005 - .2370
stoc 4
k_6 Equal variances -.555 60. .581 -.08226 .14814 -.378 .2140
105
Phys Equal variances 8.38 .00 .079 69 .937 .02419 .30611 -.586 .6348
Phys Equal variances 18.2 .00 .027 69 .978 .00968 .35373 - .7153
stoc 0
k_8 Equal variances .029 66. .977 .00968 .33535 -.659 .6790
Phys Equal variances 12.5 .00 - 69 .000 - .18066 - -
ical_ assumed 32 1 6.02 1.0879 1.448 .7275
stoc 2 0 30 0
k_9 Equal variances -5.58 42. .000 -1.087 .19483 -1.48 -.694
not assumed 4 058 90 07 74
Phys Equal variances 16.7 .00 2.91 69 .005 .31613 .10833 .1000 .5322
ical_ assumed 90 0 8 2 4
stoc Equal variances 2.83 56. .006 .31613 .11148 .0928 .5394
k_10 not assumed 6 331 4 2
Phys Equal variances 1.01 .31 -.165 69 .869 -.04435 .26857 -.580 .4914
stoc Equal variances -.161 58. .872 -.04435 .27477 -.594 .5056
Phys Equal variances .390 .53 .309 69 .758 .03468 .11217 -.189 .2584
Phys Equal variances .019 .88 -.073 69 .942 -.00887 .12125 -.250 .2330
stoc Equal variances -.073 64. .942 -.00887 .12132 -.251 .2334
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances has been used with assumptions that the
variances for the two groups viz. Binani Cement and Vikram Cement are equal. The
106
gap between two defined categories is statistically significant (p<.05) for variables
Physical_stock_1, Physical_stock_2, Physical_stock_5, Physical_stock_6,
Physical_stock_7, Physical_stock_8, Physical_stock_9 and Physical_stock_10 which
connotes that significant difference exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram
Cement respondents group. Thus, equal variance Not assumed row is selected for
conducting the Independent sample T-Test. The Independent sample test results
insignificant differences (P<0.05) between Binani Cement and Vikram Cement on the
selected construct is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Thus, the respondents of Binani Cement and Vikram Cement both perceive the
significantly different opinion for physical stock kept by both the companies (µ
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Physical_stock_1 and Physical_stock_10 perception is
better for respondents of Binani cement respondents while for variables
Physical_stock_2 and Physical_stock_9 perception of Vikram cement respondents
was better.
As per the research objective (to measure systematic proactive approach adopted by
companies for predicting the requirement of spare parts) Independent sample t Test
was carried out to measure the significance of gap between the categories of identified
variables of Binani and Vikram cement. Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

predict the requirement of spare parts for importance between Binani Cement
and Vikram Cement.
107
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Company N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
Important_1 1.00 40 3.8750 .68641 .10853
2.00 31 4.2581 .44480 .07989
Important_2 1.00 40 4.0500 .71432 .11294
2.00 31 4.4516 .56796 .10201
Important_3 1.00 40 3.6500 .94868 .15000
2.00 31 3.6452 1.33037 .23894
Important_4 1.00 40 4.1500 .53349 .08435
2.00 31 4.5484 .50588 .09086
Important_5 1.00 40 3.8000 1.13680 .17974
2.00 31 3.6129 .98919 .17766
Important_6 1.00 40 4.5250 .50574 .07996
2.00 31 4.2258 1.02338 .18380
Important_7 1.00 40 3.1000 1.08131 .17097
2.00 31 3.4839 1.06053 .19048
Important_8 1.00 40 2.5000 1.24035 .19612
2.00 31 3.0000 .73030 .13117
Important_9 1.00 40 3.0500 1.10824 .17523
2.00 31 2.4839 1.15097 .20672
Important_10 1.00 40 2.6250 1.27475 .20156
2.00 31 2.4839 .96163 .17271
Important_11 1.00 40 2.8000 1.01779 .16093
2.00 31 3.2903 1.18866 .21349

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
108
95%
Std. Confidence
Sig. Mean Error Interval of the
(2- Differen Differen Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Lower Upper
Im Equal .081 .77 -2.6 69 .009 -.38306 .14203 - -
por variances 6 97 .6664 .0997
tan assumed 1 2
t_1 Equal -2.8 67.1 .006 -.38306 .13476 - -
variances not 43 03 .6520 .1140
assumed 5 8
Im Equal 1.81 .18 -2.5 69 .013 -.40161 .15667 - -
por variances 6 2 64 .7141 .0890
tan assumed 5 7
t_2 Equal -2.6 68.9 .010 -.40161 .15219 - -
variances not 39 41 .7052 .0979
assumed 3 9
Im Equal 5.51 .02 .018 69 .986 .00484 .27053 - .5445
por variances 0 2 .5348 4
tan assumed 6
t_3 Equal .017 52.0 .986 .00484 .28212 - .5709
variances not 83 .5612 4
assumed 6
Im Equal 4.44 .03 - 69 .002 -.39839 .12483 - -
por variances 0 9 3.19 .6474 .1493
tan assumed 1 1 6
t_4 Equal - 66.1 .002 -.39839 .12398 - -
variances not 3.21 82 .6459 .1508
assumed 3 1 7
Im Equal .026 .87 .727 69 .470 .18710 .25726 - .7003
por variances 3 .3261 2
tan assumed 2
109
t_5 Equal .740 68.0 .462 .18710 .25273 - .6914
assumed 1
Im Equal 9.33 .00 1.61 69 .111 .29919 .18534 - .6689
por variances 9 3 4 .0705 3
tan assumed 5
t_6 Equal 1.49 41.2 .143 .29919 .20045 - .7039
variances not 3 93 .1055 1
assumed 3
Im Equal .561 .45 - 69 .139 -.38387 .25659 - .1280
por variances 6 1.49 .8957 2
tan assumed 6 6
t_7 Equal - 65.2 .138 -.38387 .25595 - .1272
variances not 1.50 39 .8950 7
assumed 0 1
Im Equal 12.2 .00 - 69 .050 -.50000 .25113 - .0009
por variances 11 1 1.99 1.000 9
tan assumed 1 99
t_8 Equal - 64.8 .038 -.50000 .23594 - -
variances not 2.11 30 .9712 .0287
assumed 9 2 8
Im Equal .274 .60 2.09 69 .039 .56613 .26968 .0281 1.104
por variances 3 9 3 13
tan assumed
t_9 Equal 2.08 63.4 .041 .56613 .27100 .0246 1.107
variances not 9 15 6 60
assumed
Im Equal 1.79 .18 .513 69 .609 .14113 .27498 - .6896
por variances 3 5 .4074 9
tan assumed 3
t_1 Equal .532 68.9 .597 .14113 .26543 - .6706
0 variances not 64 .3884 6
assumed 0
110
Im Equal 1.33 .25 - 69 .066 -.49032 .26210 - .0325
por variances 0 3 1.87 1.013 6
tan assumed 1 21
t_1 Equal - 59.1 .072 -.49032 .26735 - .0446
1 variances not 1.83 00 1.025 2
assumed 4 27
Important_3, Important_4 and Important_8 which connotes that significant difference
exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group. Thus, equal
variance Not assumed row is selected for conducting the Independent sample T-Test.
While, for other variable Important_1, Important_2 and Important_9 the gap between
two defined categories is statistically in significant (p>.05). This connotes that
insignificant difference exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement
respondents group for variables Thus, equal variance assumed row is selected for
conducting the Independent sample T-Test.
The Independent sample test results insignificant differences (P<0.05) between Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement on the selected construct is statistically significant at 5%
level of significance. Thus, the respondents of Binani Cement and Vikram Cement
both perceive the significantly different opinion for physical stock kept by both the
companies (µ Binani≠µVikram). For variable Important_1, Important_2, Important_4 and
Important_8 perception is better for respondents of Vikram cement respondents while
for variables Important_3 and Important_9 perception of Binani cement respondents
was better.
Further, Independent sample t Test was carried out to measure the significance of gap
between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.
Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:
111
predict the requirement of spare parts for Visual Inspection between Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement.

Group Statistics
Std. Error
Visual_insp_1 1.00 40 1.9750 .65974 .10431
2.00 31 2.7419 1.21017 .21735
Visual_insp_2 1.00 40 3.0500 1.10824 .17523
2.00 31 2.5484 1.12068 .20128
Visual_insp_3 1.00 40 4.2250 .42290 .06687
2.00 31 4.5806 .50161 .09009
Visual_insp_4 1.00 40 3.0500 1.10824 .17523
2.00 31 2.7419 1.23741 .22225
Visual_insp_5 1.00 40 4.3500 .62224 .09838
2.00 31 4.3226 .47519 .08535
Visual_insp_6 1.00 40 4.4750 .50574 .07996
2.00 31 4.0968 1.04419 .18754
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
95%
Confidence
Sig. Std. Interval of the
(2- Mean Error Difference
Sig taile Differe Differe Lowe
F . t df d) nce nce r Upper
112
Visu Equal 14.6 .00 - 69 .001 -.76694 .22482 - -
al_in variances 94 0 3.41 1.215 .3184
sp_1 assumed 1 44 3
Equal - 43.6 .003 -.76694 .24109 - -
variances not 3.18 31 1.252 .2809
assumed 1 93 4
Visu Equal .164 .68 1.88 69 .064 .50161 .26649 - 1.033
al_in variances 7 2 .0300 24
sp_2 assumed 1
Equal 1.88 64.2 .065 .50161 .26687 - 1.034
assumed 7
Visu Equal 9.98 .00 - 69 .002 -.35565 .10978 - -
al_in variances 6 2 3.24 .5746 .1366
sp_3 assumed 0 5 4
Equal - 58.5 .002 -.35565 .11219 - -
variances not 3.17 00 .5801 .1311
assumed 0 9 0
Visu Equal 1.37 .24 1.10 69 .273 .30806 .27905 - .8647
al_in variances 0 6 4 .2486 5
sp_4 assumed 2
Equal 1.08 60.8 .281 .30806 .28302 - .8740
assumed 0
Visu Equal 1.61 .20 .204 69 .839 .02742 .13473 - .2962
al_in variances 4 8 .2413 0
sp_5 assumed 6
Equal .211 68.9 .834 .02742 .13024 - .2872
assumed 1
Visu Equal 10.0 .00 2.01 69 .048 .37823 .18820 .0027 .7536
al_in variances 10 2 0 7 8
sp_6 assumed
113
Equal 1.85 40.8 .071 .37823 .20388 - .7900
assumed 6
Visual_insp_1, Visual_insp_3, Visual_insp_6 which connotes that significant
difference exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group.
Thus, equal variance Not assumed row is selected for conducting the Independent
sample T-Test.
The Independent sample test results significant differences (P<0.05) between Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement on Visual_insp_1 and Visual_insp_3, construct is
statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Visual_insp_1 and Visual_insp_3 perception is better for
respondents of Vikram cement company’s respondents.

predict the requirement of spare parts for Computerisation assessment between
Binani Cement and Vikram Cement.
114
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Comp_assess_1 1.00 40 4.5250 .50574 .07996
2.00 31 4.0000 .93095 .16720
Comp_assess_2 1.00 40 4.4250 .50064 .07916
2.00 31 4.1613 1.24088 .22287
Comp_assess_3 1.00 40 4.4500 .50383 .07966
2.00 31 3.7419 1.36547 .24525
Comp_assess_4 1.00 40 3.0250 1.44093 .22783
2.00 31 3.0323 .91228 .16385
Comp_assess_5 1.00 40 2.7000 1.38119 .21839
2.00 31 3.0645 1.03071 .18512
Comp_assess_6 1.00 40 2.9000 1.48151 .23425
2.00 31 3.1613 .96943 .17411
Comp_assess_7 1.00 40 3.0250 1.57688 .24933
2.00 31 3.4516 .92516 .16616
Comp_assess_8 1.00 40 2.8500 1.59406 .25204
2.00 31 2.7742 .99028 .17786

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
95%
Confidence
Interval of
Sig. Std. the
Sig taile Differe Differe Lowe
F . t df d) nce nce r Upper
115
Comp Equal 1.96 .16 3.0 69 .003 .52500 .17278 .1803 .8696
_asse variances 9 5 39 1 9
ss_1 assumed
Equal 2.8 43.5 .007 .52500 .18534 .1513 .8986
assumed
Comp Equal 25.6 .00 1.2 69 .225 .26371 .21551 - .6936
_asse variances 87 0 24 .1662 4
ss_2 assumed 2
Equal 1.1 37.5 .272 .26371 .23651 - .7426
assumed 5
Comp Equal 76.4 .00 3.0 69 .003 .70806 .23374 .2417 1.174
_asse variances 54 0 29 8 35
ss_3 assumed
Equal 2.7 36.3 .009 .70806 .25786 .1852 1.230
assumed
Comp Equal 9.89 .00 - 69 .981 -.00726 .29650 - .5842
_asse variances 1 2 .02 .5987 5
ss_4 assumed 4 7
Equal - 66.6 .979 -.00726 .28063 - .5529
variances not .02 11 .5674 5
assumed 6 6
Comp Equal 5.20 .02 - 69 .224 -.36452 .29696 - .2279
_asse variances 9 6 1.2 .9569 1
ss_5 assumed 27 4
Equal - 68.9 .207 -.36452 .28629 - .2066
variances not 1.2 22 .9356 3
assumed 73 6
Comp Equal 10.4 .00 - 69 .398 -.26129 .30729 - .3517
_asse variances 28 2 .85 .8743 4
ss_6 assumed 0 2
116
Equal - 67.2 .374 -.26129 .29187 - .3212
variances not .89 95 .8438 4
assumed 5 2
Comp Equal 22.7 .00 - 69 .186 -.42661 .31903 - .2098
_asse variances 32 0 1.3 1.063 4
ss_7 assumed 37 06
Equal - 64.7 .159 -.42661 .29962 - .1718
variances not 1.4 36 1.025 2
assumed 24 05
Comp Equal 10.5 .00 .23 69 .817 .07581 .32657 - .7273
_asse variances 38 2 2 .5756 0
ss_8 assumed 9
Equal .24 66.1 .807 .07581 .30848 - .6916
assumed 6
Comp_assess_2, Comp_assess_3, Comp_assess_4, Comp_assess_5, Comp_assess_6,
Comp_assess_7 and Comp_assess_8. which connotes that significant difference exist
between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group. Thus, equal
Cement and Vikram Cement on Comp_assess_1 construct is statistically significant at
5% level of significance.
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Comp_assess_1 perception for respondents of Binani
cement respondents was better.
117

predict the requirement of spare parts for Computerisation assessment tracking
measures to improve store part inventory between Binani Cement and Vikram
Cement.
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Track_meas_1 1.00 40 2.9250 1.57525 .24907
2.00 31 2.9355 1.41269 .25373
Track_meas_2 1.00 40 2.8000 1.55580 .24599
2.00 31 3.0000 1.18322 .21251
Track_meas_3 1.00 40 1.2750 .45220 .07150
2.00 31 2.2258 .76200 .13686
Track_meas_4 1.00 40 1.3500 .66216 .10470
2.00 31 2.1290 1.14723 .20605

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variance
118
95%
Confidence
Interval of
Sig. Std. the
Si taile Differe Differe Lowe Uppe
F g. t df d) nce nce r r
Trac Equal .121 .7 -.029 69 .977 -.01048 .36054 - .708
k_m variances 2 .7297 77
eas_ assumed 9 4
1 Equal -.029 67.4 .977 -.01048 .35555 - .699
assumed 6
Trac Equal 6.77 .0 -.594 69 .554 -.20000 .33643 - .471
k_m variances 2 1 .8711 17
eas_ assumed 1 7
2 Equal -.615 68.9 .540 -.20000 .32508 - .448
assumed 1
Trac Equal 7.59 .0 - 69 .000 -.95081 .14517 - -
k_m variances 3 0 6.550 1.240 .661
eas_ assumed 7 40 21
3 Equal - 45.9 .000 -.95081 .15441 - -
variances not 6.158 76 1.261 .639
assumed 62 99
Trac Equal 10.7 .0 - 69 .001 -.77903 .21669 - -
k_m variances 45 0 3.595 1.211 .346
eas_ assumed 2 32 75
4 Equal - 45.1 .002 -.77903 .23112 - -
variances not 3.371 75 1.244 .313
assumed 49 58
119
Track_meas_2, Track_meas_3 and Track_meas_4. which connotes that significant
difference exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group.
Thus, equal variance Not assumed row is selected for conducting the Independent
sample T-Test.
Cement and Vikram Cement on Track_meas_3 and Track_meas_4 construct is
statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Track_meas_3 and Track_meas_4 perception is better for
respondents of Vikram cement respondents

predict the requirement of spare parts for effective spare part management to
improve store part inventory between Binani Cement and Vikram Cement.

Group Statistics
Std. Error
Rule_effec_mgt_1 1.00 40 2.1500 .62224 .09838
2.00 31 2.5161 1.06053 .19048
Rule_effec_mgt_2 1.00 40 1.3750 .62788 .09928
120
2.00 31 2.2581 1.38967 .24959
Rule_effec_mgt_3 1.00 40 1.3500 .69982 .11065
2.00 31 1.9032 1.13592 .20402
Rule_effec_mgt_4 1.00 40 1.6250 1.00480 .15887
2.00 31 2.1290 1.11779 .20076
Rule_effec_mgt_5 1.00 40 1.7000 .60764 .09608
2.00 31 2.2258 1.20304 .21607
Rule_effec_mgt_6 1.00 40 1.7750 .57679 .09120
2.00 31 2.5484 1.38657 .24904
Rule_effec_mgt_7 1.00 40 1.8250 .44650 .07060
2.00 31 2.0968 1.16490 .20922

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
95%
Confidence
Interval of
Sig. Std. the
Sig taile Differe Differe Lowe Upp
F . t df d) nce nce r er
Rule Equal variances 14.3 .00 -1. 69 .073 -.36613 .20132 -.767 .035
_effe assumed 91 0 819 75 50
c_m Equal variances -1. 45.6 .094 -.36613 .21439 -.797 .065
gt_1 not assumed 708 44 76 50
Rule Equal variances 53.1 .00 - 69 .001 -.88306 .24665 - -
_effe assumed 91 0 3.5 1.375 .391
c_m 80 11 02
121
gt_2 Equal variances - 39.4 .002 -.88306 .26861 - -
not assumed 3.2 83 1.426 .339
88 17 96
Rule Equal variances 5.92 .01 -2. 69 .014 -.55323 .21903 -.990 -.11
_effe assumed 8 7 526 17 628
c_m Equal variances -2. 47.1 .021 -.55323 .23209 -1.02 -.08
gt_3 not assumed 384 09 011 634
Rule Equal variances .541 .46 -1. 69 .050 -.50403 .25255 -1.00 -.00
_effe assumed 5 996 7 022
c_m Equal variances -1. 60.9 .054 -.50403 .25602 -1.01 .007
gt_4 not assumed 969 52 598 92
Rule Equal variances 7.88 .00 -2.4 69 .019 -.52581 .21904 -.9627 -.088
_effe assumed 6 6
gt_5 not assumed 224 79 310 852
Rule Equal variances 34.5 .00 -3. 69 .002 -.77339 .24213 -1.25 -.29
_effe assumed 94 0 194 643 034
gt_6 not assumed 91 60
Rule Equal variances 32.9 .00 -1.3 69 .180 -.27177 .20058 - .128
_effe assumed 5 0 .6719 38
c_m Equal variances -1.2 36.8 .226 -.27177 .22081 -.719 .175
gt_7 not assumed 53 69
Rule_effec_mgt_1, Rule_effec_mgt_2, Rule_effec_mgt_3, Rule_effec_mgt_5,
Rule_effec_mgt_6 and Rule_effec_mgt_7, which connotes that significant difference
exist between the Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group. Thus, equal
122
Cement and Vikram Cement on Rule_effec_mgt_2, Rule_effec_mgt_3,
Rule_effec_mgt_5 and Rule_effec_mgt_6 construct is statistically significant at 5%
level of significance.
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Rule_effec_mgt_2, Rule_effec_mgt_3, Rule_effec_mgt_5,
Rule_effec_mgt_6 perception is better for respondents of Vikram cement respondents

predict the requirement of spare parts for Important points regarding
Predictive management between Binani Cement and Vikram Cement.
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Imp_ProMgt_1 1.00 40 1.5750 .67511 .10674
2.00 31 2.3871 .95490 .17150
Imp_ProMgt_2 1.00 40 2.6750 .88831 .14045
2.00 31 2.6774 .59928 .10763
Imp_ProMgt_3 1.00 40 2.9500 1.21845 .19265
2.00 31 2.8065 .87252 .15671
Imp_ProMgt_4 1.00 40 2.0250 .76753 .12136
2.00 31 2.5161 .96163 .17271
123
Imp_ProMgt_5 1.00 40 2.2750 1.06187 .16790
2.00 31 3.0000 .68313 .12269
Imp_ProMgt_6 1.00 40 2.2000 1.01779 .16093
2.00 31 2.5484 1.12068 .20128
Imp_ProMgt_7 1.00 40 1.4750 .67889 .10734
2.00 31 2.4839 1.15097 .20672
Imp_ProMgt_8 1.00 40 2.7000 1.58842 .25115
2.00 31 2.6452 1.01812 .18286
Imp_ProMgt_9 1.00 40 2.2000 .93918 .14850
2.00 31 2.5484 1.09053 .19586
Imp_ProMgt_10 1.00 40 1.6250 .74032 .11706
2.00 31 2.0645 1.31493 .23617

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variance
95%
Sig. Std. Confidence
(2- Mean Error Interval of the
Sig taile Differe Differ Difference
F . t df d) nce ence Lower Upper
Imp Equal variances 3.32 .07 - 69 .000 -.81210 .1935 -1.19 -.426
_Pr assumed 9 2 4.196 2
oM Equal variances - 51. .000 -.81210 .2020 -1.217 -.406
gt_ not assumed 4.020 7 1
1
Imp Equal variances 3.89 .05 -.013 69 .990 -.00242 .1856 - .3680
_Pr assumed 8 .37285 1
124
oM Equal variances -.014 67. .989 -.00242 .1769 -.3555 .3507
gt_ not assumed 84
2
Imp Equal variances .549 .46 .555 69 .581 .14355 .2588 -.3728 .6599
_Pr assumed
oM Equal variances .578 68. .565 .14355 .2483 - .6390
gt_ not assumed 62 4 .35193 2
3 6
Imp Equal variances 7.91 .00 - 69 .019 -.49113 .2051 - -
_Pr assumed 5 6 2.394 5 .90039 .0818
oM 7
gt_ Equal variances -2.32 56. .024 -.49113 .2110 - -
4 not assumed 36 9 .91393 .0683
Imp Equal variances 29.3 .00 - 69 .002 -.72500 .2193 - -
_Pr assumed 45 0 3.305 4 1.1625 .2874
oM Equal variances - 66. .001 -.72500 .2079 - -
gt_ not assumed 3.486 95 5 1.1400 .3099
5
Imp Equal variances 1.49 .22 - 69 .176 -.34839 .2545 - .1594
_Pr assumed 3 6 1.369 4 .85618
oM Equal variances - 61. .181 -.34839 .2577 -.8636 .1668
gt_ not assumed 1.352 33
6
Imp Equal variances 18.4 .00 - 69 .000 -1.0088 .2188 -1.445 -.572
_Pr assumed 24 0 4.610 5
oM Equal variances - 45. .000 -1.0088 .2329 -1.477 -.539
gt_ not assumed 4.331 79 3
7 8
Imp Equal variances 9.14 .00 .167 69 .868 .05484 .3278 -.5991 .7088
_Pr assumed 7 3 1
oM Equal variances .177 66. .860 .05484 .3106 -.5652 .6749
gt_ not assumed 87
8
125
_Pr assumed 9 1 1.445 5 .82946 9
oM Equal variances - 59. .162 -.34839 .2457 - .1433
gt_ not assumed 1.417 32 9 .84016 9
9
_Pr assumed 36 0 1.783 4 .93135 2
oM Equal variances - 44. .102 -.43952 .2635 - .0915
gt_ not assumed 1.667 48 9 .97057 4
10
Imp_ProMgt_4, Imp_ProMgt_5, Imp_ProMgt_7, Imp_ProMgt_8 and
Imp_ProMgt_10, which connotes that significant difference exist between the Binani
Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group. Thus, equal variance Not assumed
row is selected for conducting the Independent sample T-Test. While, for other
variable Imp_ProMgt_1 the gap between two defined categories is statistically
insignificant (p>.05), This connotes that insignificant difference exist between the
Binani Cement and Vikram Cement respondents group for variables Thus, equal
variance assumed row is selected for conducting the Independent sample T-Test.
Cement and Vikram Cement on Imp_ProMgt_1, Imp_ProMgt_4, Imp_ProMgt_5 and
Imp_ProMgt_7 construct is statistically significant at 5% level of significance.
Binani≠µVikram). For variable Imp_ProMgt_1, Imp_ProMgt_4, Imp_ProMgt_5 and
Imp_ProMgt_7 perception is better for respondents of Vikram cement respondents.
126
4.6 Group differences as per demographical profile
To measure the differences in the opinion of the respondents as per their group, the
group difference is shown as under:
ANOVA analysis is conducted to measure the differences amongst the various factor
scores of stock kept by both the companies for spare parts. The following hypothesis
is made:
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Physical stock across

age categories.
To test the above hypothesis ANOVA test was being used with the different banks
with SPSS-19 software. The results were provided in table below:
Table-4.26: Measuring Age wise Group difference for physical stock

Descriptives
95% Confidence Min
Std. Interval for Mean i
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper mu Maxi
N Mean n Error Bound Bound m mum
Physical_s 1.00 8 2.7500 1.28174 .45316 1.6784 3.8216 1.00 4.00
tock_1 2.00 35 2.3429 1.43369 .24234 1.8504 2.8353 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7500 1.53055 .28925 2.1565 3.3435 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.5493 1.45198 .17232 2.2056 2.8930 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 2.0000 1.19523 .42258 1.0008 2.9992 1.00 4.00
tock_2 2.00 35 1.6286 .54695 .09245 1.4407 1.8165 1.00 3.00
3.00 28 1.5714 .57275 .10824 1.3493 1.7935 1.00 3.00
Total 71 1.6479 .65680 .07795 1.4924 1.8033 1.00 4.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 3.1250 .64087 .22658 2.5892 3.6608 2.00 4.00
tock_3 2.00 35 2.5714 1.11897 .18914 2.1870 2.9558 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.5357 1.03574 .19574 2.1341 2.9373 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.6197 1.04698 .12425 2.3719 2.8675 1.00 4.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 2.6250 1.30247 .46049 1.5361 3.7139 1.00 5.00
127
tock_4 2.00 35 2.1143 .99325 .16789 1.7731 2.4555 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.0357 1.07090 .20238 1.6205 2.4510 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.1408 1.05959 .12575 1.8900 2.3916 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 3.0000 .75593 .26726 2.3680 3.6320 2.00 4.00
tock_5 2.00 35 2.8571 1.28665 .21748 2.4152 3.2991 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.8571 1.07890 .20389 2.4388 3.2755 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8732 1.14555 .13595 2.6021 3.1444 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 2.0000 .75593 .26726 1.3680 2.6320 1.00 3.00
tock_6 2.00 35 1.9143 .70174 .11862 1.6732 2.1553 1.00 3.00
3.00 28 2.0714 .60422 .11419 1.8371 2.3057 1.00 3.00
Total 71 1.9859 .66532 .07896 1.8284 2.1434 1.00 3.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 3.7500 .88641 .31339 3.0089 4.4911 2.00 5.00
tock_7 2.00 35 3.1714 1.40348 .23723 2.6893 3.6535 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.1786 1.18801 .22451 2.7179 3.6392 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2394 1.27015 .15074 2.9388 3.5401 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 3.7500 1.48805 .52610 2.5060 4.9940 1.00 5.00
tock_8 2.00 35 3.2286 1.55461 .26278 2.6945 3.7626 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.2500 1.37773 .26037 2.7158 3.7842 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2958 1.46769 .17418 2.9484 3.6432 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 2.5000 .75593 .26726 1.8680 3.1320 2.00 4.00
tock_9 2.00 35 1.7714 .91026 .15386 1.4587 2.0841 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.1429 .93152 .17604 1.7817 2.5041 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.0000 .92582 .10987 1.7809 2.2191 1.00 4.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 1.7500 .46291 .16366 1.3630 2.1370 1.00 2.00
tock_10 2.00 35 1.6000 .49705 .08402 1.4293 1.7707 1.00 2.00
3.00 28 1.7143 .46004 .08694 1.5359 1.8927 1.00 2.00
Total 71 1.6620 .47641 .05654 1.5492 1.7747 1.00 2.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 3.1250 1.12599 .39810 2.1836 4.0664 2.00 5.00
tock_11 2.00 35 3.5714 1.24347 .21018 3.1443 3.9986 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.2500 .92796 .17537 2.8902 3.6098 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.3944 1.11456 .13227 3.1306 3.6582 1.00 5.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 1.5000 .53452 .18898 1.0531 1.9469 1.00 2.00
128
tock_12 2.00 35 1.2286 .42604 .07201 1.0822 1.3749 1.00 2.00
3.00 28 1.3571 .48795 .09221 1.1679 1.5464 1.00 2.00
Total 71 1.3099 .46573 .05527 1.1996 1.4201 1.00 2.00
Physical_s 1.00 8 4.5000 .53452 .18898 4.0531 4.9469 4.00 5.00
tock_13 2.00 35 4.4857 .50709 .08571 4.3115 4.6599 4.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.4643 .50787 .09598 4.2674 4.6612 4.00 5.00
Total 71 4.4789 .50311 .05971 4.3598 4.5980 4.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Physical_ Between Groups 2.942 2 1.471 .692 .504
stock_1 Within Groups 144.636 68 2.127
Total 147.577 70
Physical_ Between Groups 1.169 2 .584 1.369 .261
stock_2 Within Groups 29.029 68 .427
Total 30.197 70
Physical_ Between Groups 2.322 2 1.161 1.061 .352
Total 76.732 70
Total 78.592 70
Physical_ Between Groups .145 2 .072 .054 .948
Total 91.859 70
Total 30.986 70
Total 112.930 70
129
Physical_ Between Groups 1.867 2 .934 .426 .655
Total 150.789 70
Physical_ Between Groups 4.400 2 2.200 2.691 .075
Total 60.000 70
Total 15.887 70
Total 86.958 70
Physical_ Between Groups .583 2 .292 1.358 .264
Total 15.183 70
Total 17.718 70
ANOVA on customer’s perceptions on physical stock kept by both the companies for
spare parts is being analysed by taking different age categories. As unexpected, the
analysis revealed a insignificant main effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables.
Thus it revealed that there is insignificant difference in the views of different age
group respondents regarding physical stock kept by both the companies for spare
parts.
Further, ANOVA analysis is conducted to measure the differences amongst the

various factor scores of stock kept by both the companies for spare parts. The
following hypothesis is made:
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Importance across

age categories.
130
Table-4.27: Measuring Age wise Group difference for Importance

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Mini Maxi
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound mum mum
Important_1 1.00 8 4.5000 .53452 .18898 4.0531 4.9469 4.00 5.00
2.00 35 4.0286 .56806 .09602 3.8334 4.2237 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.9286 .66269 .12524 3.6716 4.1855 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.0423 .61960 .07353 3.8956 4.1889 2.00 5.00
Important_2 1.00 8 4.2500 1.03510 .36596 3.3846 5.1154 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 4.2286 .64561 .10913 4.0068 4.4503 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.2143 .62994 .11905 3.9700 4.4586 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.2254 .68028 .08073 4.0643 4.3864 2.00 5.00
Important_3 1.00 8 4.0000 .92582 .32733 3.2260 4.7740 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 3.5429 1.22097 .20638 3.1234 3.9623 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.6786 1.05597 .19956 3.2691 4.0880 2.00 5.00
Total 71 3.6479 1.12248 .13321 3.3822 3.9136 1.00 5.00
Important_4 1.00 8 4.2500 .46291 .16366 3.8630 4.6370 4.00 5.00
2.00 35 4.3714 .49024 .08287 4.2030 4.5398 4.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.2857 .65868 .12448 4.0303 4.5411 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3239 .55484 .06585 4.1926 4.4553 2.00 5.00
Important_5 1.00 8 3.8750 .83452 .29505 3.1773 4.5727 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 3.9714 .95442 .16133 3.6436 4.2993 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.3571 1.19301 .22546 2.8945 3.8197 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.7183 1.07149 .12716 3.4647 3.9719 1.00 5.00
Important_6 1.00 8 4.3750 .51755 .18298 3.9423 4.8077 4.00 5.00
2.00 35 4.4857 .70174 .11862 4.2447 4.7268 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.2857 .93718 .17711 3.9223 4.6491 2.00 5.00
131
Total 71 4.3944 .78338 .09297 4.2089 4.5798 2.00 5.00
Important_7 1.00 8 3.3750 .91613 .32390 2.6091 4.1409 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 3.2000 1.15809 .19575 2.8022 3.5978 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.3214 1.05597 .19956 2.9120 3.7309 2.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2676 1.08177 .12838 3.0116 3.5237 2.00 5.00
Important_8 1.00 8 2.5000 1.19523 .42258 1.5008 3.4992 1.00 4.00
2.00 35 2.7143 .95706 .16177 2.3855 3.0430 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7857 1.19744 .22629 2.3214 3.2500 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.7183 1.07149 .12716 2.4647 2.9719 1.00 5.00
Important_9 1.00 8 3.5000 1.19523 .42258 2.5008 4.4992 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 2.6286 1.05957 .17910 2.2646 2.9925 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.8214 1.21879 .23033 2.3488 3.2940 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8028 1.15412 .13697 2.5296 3.0760 1.00 5.00
Important_10 1.00 8 3.1250 .99103 .35038 2.2965 3.9535 2.00 5.00
2.00 35 2.4857 1.14716 .19390 2.0917 2.8798 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.5000 1.17063 .22123 2.0461 2.9539 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.5634 1.14308 .13566 2.2928 2.8339 1.00 5.00
Important_11 1.00 8 3.3750 1.40789 .49776 2.1980 4.5520 1.00 5.00
2.00 35 2.9143 1.01087 .17087 2.5670 3.2615 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.0357 1.17006 .22112 2.5820 3.4894 2.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0141 1.11474 .13230 2.7502 3.2779 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Import Between Groups 2.045 2 1.022 2.800 .068
ant_1 Within Groups 24.829 68 .365
Total 26.873 70
Import Between Groups .009 2 .004 .009 .991
Total 32.394 70
132
Import Between Groups 1.404 2 .702 .550 .579
ant_3 Within Groups 86.793 68 1.276
Total 88.197 70
Total 21.549 70
Total 80.366 70
Total 42.958 70
Total 81.915 70
Total 80.366 70
Total 93.239 70
Total 91.465 70
Total 86.986 70
ANOVA on customer’s perceptions on importance of physical stock kept by both the

companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking different age categories. As
unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main effect of fit level (p>.005) for all
variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant difference in the views of
133
different age group respondents regarding Importance of physical stock kept by both
the companies for spare parts.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Visual inspection

across age categories.
Table-4.28: Measuring Age wise Group difference for Visual inspection

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Mini Maxi
N Mean n Error Bound Bound mum mum
Visual 1.00 8 2.2500 .88641 .31339 1.5089 2.9911 1.00 4.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 2.2286 .91026 .15386 1.9159 2.5413 1.00 5.00
1 3.00 28 2.4286 1.16837 .22080 1.9755 2.8816 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.3099 1.00842 .11968 2.0712 2.5485 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 8 3.6250 1.06066 .37500 2.7383 4.5117 2.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 2.6571 1.02736 .17366 2.3042 3.0101 1.00 5.00
2 3.00 28 2.8214 1.21879 .23033 2.3488 3.2940 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8310 1.13372 .13455 2.5626 3.0993 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 8 4.2500 .46291 .16366 3.8630 4.6370 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 4.4286 .50210 .08487 4.2561 4.6010 4.00 5.00
3 3.00 28 4.3571 .48795 .09221 4.1679 4.5464 4.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3803 .48891 .05802 4.2646 4.4960 4.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 8 4.1250 .83452 .29505 3.4273 4.8227 3.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 2.7143 1.04520 .17667 2.3552 3.0733 1.00 5.00
134
4 3.00 28 2.8214 1.21879 .23033 2.3488 3.2940 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.9155 1.16798 .13861 2.6390 3.1920 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 8 4.7500 .46291 .16366 4.3630 5.1370 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 4.2286 .42604 .07201 4.0822 4.3749 4.00 5.00
5 3.00 28 4.3571 .67847 .12822 4.0941 4.6202 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3380 .55917 .06636 4.2057 4.4704 2.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 8 4.5000 .53452 .18898 4.0531 4.9469 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 35 4.3429 .72529 .12260 4.0937 4.5920 2.00 5.00
6 3.00 28 4.2143 .95674 .18081 3.8433 4.5853 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3099 .80341 .09535 4.1197 4.5000 2.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Visual Between Groups .655 2 .327 .316 .730
_insp_ Within Groups 70.529 68 1.037
1 Total 71.183 70
Visual Between Groups 6.104 2 3.052 2.475 .092
2 Total 89.972 70
_insp_ Within Groups 16.500 68 .243
3 Total 16.732 70
Visual Between Groups 13.368 2 6.684 5.534 .006
4 Total 95.493 70
Visual Between Groups 1.787 2 .894 3.023 .055
5 Total 21.887 70
6 Total 45.183 70
135
ANOVA on customer’s perceptions on stock kept by both the companies for spare
parts is being analysed by taking different age categories. As expected, the analysis
revealed a significant main effect of fit level (p>.005) for variables Visual_insp_4.
Thus it revealed that there is significant difference in the views of respondents
regardingVisual inspection across age categories and the customers of age group 18-
25 years are having better perception.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Computerised

assessment across age categories.
To test the above hypothesis ANOVA test was being used with the different age
group with SPSS-19 software. The results were provided in table below:
Table-4.29: Measuring Age wise Group difference for Computerised assessment

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviati Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean on Error Bound Bound m m
Comp 1.00 8 4.2500 1.0351 .36596 3.3846 5.1154 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 4.3714 .59832 .10113 4.1659 4.5770 3.00 5.00
ss_1 3.00 28 4.2143 .87590 .16553 3.8746 4.5539 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.2958 .76335 .09059 4.1151 4.4765 2.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 4.6250 .51755 .18298 4.1923 5.0577 4.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 4.3143 .86675 .14651 4.0165 4.6120 2.00 5.00
ss_2 3.00 28 4.2143 1.0312 .19489 3.8144 4.6142 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3099 .90383 .10726 4.0959 4.5238 2.00 5.00
136
Comp 1.00 8 4.7500 .46291 .16366 4.3630 5.1370 4.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 4.0286 .95442 .16133 3.7007 4.3564 2.00 5.00
ss_3 3.00 28 4.1071 1.1968 .22619 3.6430 4.5712 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.1408 1.0322 .12251 3.8965 4.3852 2.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 3.3750 1.1877 .41993 2.3820 4.3680 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 2.9143 1.3144 .22218 2.4628 3.3658 1.00 5.00
ss_4 3.00 28 3.0714 1.1524 .21778 2.6246 3.5183 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0282 1.2302 .14600 2.7370 3.3194 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 3.1250 1.1259 .39810 2.1836 4.0664 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 2.8857 1.3233 .22369 2.4311 3.3403 1.00 5.00
ss_5 3.00 28 2.7500 1.2057 .22786 2.2825 3.2175 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8592 1.2455 .14782 2.5643 3.1540 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 3.3750 1.1877 .41993 2.3820 4.3680 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 3.0000 1.3503 .22826 2.5361 3.4639 1.00 5.00
ss_6 3.00 28 2.9286 1.2451 .23530 2.4458 3.4114 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0141 1.2816 .15211 2.7107 3.3174 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 3.5000 .92582 .32733 2.7260 4.2740 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 3.2857 1.5062 .25461 2.7683 3.8031 1.00 5.00
ss_7 3.00 28 3.0357 1.2317 .23278 2.5581 3.5133 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2113 1.3407 .15912 2.8939 3.5286 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 8 3.2500 1.1649 .41188 2.2761 4.2239 1.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 35 2.8286 1.4447 .24421 2.3323 3.3249 1.00 5.00
ss_8 3.00 28 2.6786 1.3067 .24696 2.1719 3.1853 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8169 1.3555 .16087 2.4961 3.1377 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Comp Between Groups .403 2 .202 .339 .713
_asses Within Groups 40.386 68 .594
s_1 Total 40.789 70
Comp Between Groups 1.051 2 .525 .637 .532
137
_asses Within Groups 56.132 68 .825
s_2 Total 57.183 70
Comp Between Groups 3.442 2 1.721 1.645 .201
_asses Within Groups 71.150 68 1.046
s_3 Total 74.592 70
s_4 Total 105.944 70
Comp Between Groups .924 2 .462 .292 .748
s_5 Total 108.592 70
s_6 Total 114.986 70
s_7 Total 125.831 70
Comp Between Groups 2.041 2 1.021 .548 .580
s_8 Total 128.620 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on importance of computerised assessment in

both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking different age
categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main effect of fit level
(p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant difference in the
views of different age group respondents regarding Importance of computerised
assessment kept by both the companies for spare parts.

138
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards tracking measures to
improve store part inventory across age categories.
Table-4.30: Measuring Age wise Group difference for tracking measure

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean n Error Bound Bound m m
Track 1.00 8 3.1250 1.24642 .44068 2.0830 4.1670 1.00 5.00
_mea 2.00 35 3.1143 1.67633 .28335 2.5384 3.6901 1.00 5.00
s_1 3.00 28 2.6429 1.31133 .24782 2.1344 3.1513 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.9296 1.49594 .17754 2.5755 3.2837 1.00 5.00
Track 1.00 8 3.1250 1.45774 .51539 1.9063 4.3437 1.00 5.00
_mea 2.00 35 3.0000 1.41421 .23905 2.5142 3.4858 1.00 5.00
s_2 3.00 28 2.6786 1.38921 .26254 2.1399 3.2172 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8873 1.39948 .16609 2.5561 3.2186 1.00 5.00
Track 1.00 8 1.8750 .83452 .29505 1.1773 2.5727 1.00 3.00
_mea 2.00 35 1.5429 .78000 .13184 1.2749 1.8108 1.00 4.00
s_3 3.00 28 1.8214 .72283 .13660 1.5411 2.1017 1.00 3.00
Total 71 1.6901 .76703 .09103 1.5086 1.8717 1.00 4.00
Track 1.00 8 2.1250 1.45774 .51539 .9063 3.3437 1.00 5.00
_mea 2.00 35 1.5714 .94824 .16028 1.2457 1.8972 1.00 5.00
s_4 3.00 28 1.7143 .85449 .16148 1.3829 2.0456 1.00 3.00
Total 71 1.6901 .97967 .11627 1.4583 1.9220 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Track_ Between Groups 3.801 2 1.901 .846 .434
139
meas_1 Within Groups 152.846 68 2.248
Total 156.648 70
Total 137.099 70
Track_ Between Groups 1.515 2 .758 1.299 .280
meas_3 Within Groups 39.668 68 .583
Total 41.183 70
Track_ Between Groups 2.022 2 1.011 1.055 .354
Total 67.183 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on importance of tracking measures to improve

store part inventory in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking
different age categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main
effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant
difference in the views of different age group respondents regarding tracking
measures to improve store part inventory by both the companies for spare parts.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Rules for effective

spare part management across age categories.
140
Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Rule_e 1.00 8 2.1250 .64087 .22658 1.5892 2.6608 1.00 3.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 2.3429 .96841 .16369 2.0102 2.6755 1.00 5.00
gt_1 3.00 28 2.3214 .77237 .14596 2.0219 2.6209 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3099 .85509 .10148 2.1075 2.5123 1.00 5.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 1.7500 1.16496 .41188 .7761 2.7239 1.00 4.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 1.7429 1.17180 .19807 1.3403 2.1454 1.00 5.00
gt_2 3.00 28 1.7857 1.06657 .20156 1.3721 2.1993 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.7606 1.11438 .13225 1.4968 2.0243 1.00 5.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 1.8750 .99103 .35038 1.0465 2.7035 1.00 4.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 1.6000 1.00587 .17002 1.2545 1.9455 1.00 4.00
gt_3 3.00 28 1.5000 .88192 .16667 1.1580 1.8420 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.5915 .94985 .11273 1.3667 1.8164 1.00 4.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 1.7500 1.03510 .36596 .8846 2.6154 1.00 4.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 1.9143 1.12122 .18952 1.5291 2.2994 1.00 4.00
gt_4 3.00 28 1.7857 1.06657 .20156 1.3721 2.1993 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.8451 1.07767 .12790 1.5900 2.1002 1.00 4.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 1.6250 1.06066 .37500 .7383 2.5117 1.00 4.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 2.0286 .95442 .16133 1.7007 2.3564 1.00 5.00
gt_5 3.00 28 1.8929 .91649 .17320 1.5375 2.2482 1.00 5.00
Total 71 1.9296 .94603 .11227 1.7057 2.1535 1.00 5.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 1.7500 1.03510 .36596 .8846 2.6154 1.00 4.00
ffec_m 2.00 35 2.2857 1.04520 .17667 1.9267 2.6448 1.00 5.00
gt_6 3.00 28 2.0000 1.12217 .21207 1.5649 2.4351 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.1127 1.07636 .12774 1.8579 2.3674 1.00 5.00
Rule_e 1.00 8 2.0000 1.06904 .37796 1.1063 2.8937 1.00 4.00
141
ffec_m 2.00 35 2.0000 .84017 .14201 1.7114 2.2886 1.00 4.00
gt_7 3.00 28 1.8571 .80343 .15183 1.5456 2.1687 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9437 .84325 .10008 1.7441 2.1433 1.00 4.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Rule_eff Between Groups .315 2 .158 .211 .811
ec_mgt_ Within Groups 50.868 68 .748
1 Total 51.183 70
ec_mgt_ Within Groups 86.900 68 1.278
2 Total 86.930 70
3 Total 63.155 70
4 Total 81.296 70
Rule_eff Between Groups 1.123 2 .561 .621 .541
5 Total 62.648 70
Rule_eff Between Groups 2.456 2 1.228 1.062 .352
6 Total 81.099 70
7 Total 49.775 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on importance of Rules for effective spare part

management in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking
different age categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main
142
effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant
difference in the views of different age group respondents regarding t Rules for
effective spare part management by both the companies for spare parts.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Important points

regarding Predictive management across age categories.

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviat Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean ion Error Bound Bound m m
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.2500 1.0351 .36596 1.3846 3.1154 1.00 4.00
ProM 2.00 35 1.8857 .79600 .13455 1.6123 2.1591 1.00 4.00
gt_1 3.00 28 1.8929 .99403 .18785 1.5074 2.2783 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9296 .89959 .10676 1.7166 2.1425 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.3750 .74402 .26305 1.7530 2.9970 2.00 4.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.7143 .82503 .13946 2.4309 2.9977 1.00 4.00
gt_2 3.00 28 2.7143 .71270 .13469 2.4379 2.9906 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.6761 .77043 .09143 2.4937 2.8584 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.2500 .70711 .25000 1.6588 2.8412 1.00 3.00
ProM 2.00 35 3.0571 1.0831 .18308 2.6851 3.4292 1.00 5.00
gt_3 3.00 28 2.8571 1.1127 .21028 2.4257 3.2886 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8873 1.0763 .12774 2.6326 3.1421 1.00 5.00
143
Imp_ 1.00 8 1.7500 .70711 .25000 1.1588 2.3412 1.00 3.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.3143 .86675 .14651 2.0165 2.6120 1.00 4.00
gt_4 3.00 28 2.2857 .93718 .17711 1.9223 2.6491 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.2394 .88584 .10513 2.0298 2.4491 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.6250 1.3024 .46049 1.5361 3.7139 1.00 5.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.6000 .97619 .16501 2.2647 2.9353 1.00 4.00
gt_5 3.00 28 2.5714 .92009 .17388 2.2147 2.9282 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.5915 .97947 .11624 2.3597 2.8234 1.00 5.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 1.8750 .83452 .29505 1.1773 2.5727 1.00 3.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.3429 1.1099 .18761 1.9616 2.7241 1.00 4.00
gt_6 3.00 28 2.5000 1.0715 .20250 2.0845 2.9155 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3521 1.0703 .12703 2.0988 2.6055 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.2500 .88641 .31339 1.5089 2.9911 1.00 3.00
ProM 2.00 35 1.8857 1.0784 .18229 1.5153 2.2562 1.00 4.00
gt_7 3.00 28 1.8571 1.0440 .19730 1.4523 2.2620 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9155 1.0384 .12325 1.6697 2.1613 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 1.8750 1.3562 .47949 .7412 3.0088 1.00 5.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.9143 1.3584 .22962 2.4476 3.3809 1.00 5.00
gt_8 3.00 28 2.6071 1.3148 .24848 2.0973 3.1170 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.6761 1.3604 .16145 2.3541 2.9981 1.00 5.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 2.0000 1.0690 .37796 1.1063 2.8937 1.00 4.00
ProM 2.00 35 2.3143 1.0508 .17762 1.9533 2.6753 1.00 4.00
gt_9 3.00 28 2.5000 .96225 .18185 2.1269 2.8731 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3521 1.0155 .12053 2.1117 2.5925 1.00 4.00
Imp_ 1.00 8 1.7500 1.0351 .36596 .8846 2.6154 1.00 4.00
ProM 2.00 35 1.8286 1.0706 .18097 1.4608 2.1963 1.00 4.00
gt_10 3.00 28 1.8214 1.0559 .19956 1.4120 2.2309 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.8169 1.0462 .12416 1.5693 2.0645 1.00 4.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
144
Imp_Pro Between Groups .926 2 .463 .565 .571
Mgt_1 Within Groups 55.721 68 .819
Total 56.648 70
Total 41.549 70
Imp_Pro Between Groups 4.284 2 2.142 1.896 .158
Mgt_3 Within Groups 76.814 68 1.130
Total 81.099 70
Total 54.930 70
Total 67.155 70
Total 80.197 70
Imp_Pro Between Groups 1.022 2 .511 .466 .629
Total 75.493 70
Total 129.549 70
Imp_Pro Between Groups 1.654 2 .827 .797 .455
Total 72.197 70
Total 76.620 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on importance of Important points regarding

Predictive management in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by
145
taking different age categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant
main effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is
insignificant difference in the views of different age group respondents regarding
important points regarding Predictive management by both the companies for spare
parts.
Designation wise Differences
To measure the designation wise differences amongst the respondents the

analysis is conducted to measure the differences amongst the various factor scores of
stock kept by both the companies for spare parts. The following hypothesis is made:
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Physical Stockroom

across designation categories.
To test the above hypothesis ANOVA test was being used with the different
designation group with SPSS-19 software. The results were provided in table below:
Table-4.33: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for Physical

Stockroom
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviatio Std. Lower Upper Mini Maxim
N Mean n Error Bound Bound mum um
Physical 1.00 23 2.2174 1.50625 .31407 1.5660 2.8687 1.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.8000 1.32188 .29558 2.1813 3.4187 1.00 5.00
1 3.00 28 2.6429 1.49603 .28272 2.0628 3.2230 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.5493 1.45198 .17232 2.2056 2.8930 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 1.7826 .79524 .16582 1.4387 2.1265 1.00 4.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 1.7500 .55012 .12301 1.4925 2.0075 1.00 3.00
2 3.00 28 1.4643 .57620 .10889 1.2409 1.6877 1.00 3.00
146
Total 71 1.6479 .65680 .07795 1.4924 1.8033 1.00 4.00
Physical 1.00 23 3.3043 .55880 .11652 3.0627 3.5460 2.00 4.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.3500 1.18210 .26433 1.7968 2.9032 1.00 4.00
3 3.00 28 2.2500 1.00462 .18986 1.8604 2.6396 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.6197 1.04698 .12425 2.3719 2.8675 1.00 4.00
Physical 1.00 23 2.5217 .94722 .19751 2.1121 2.9313 1.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 1.7000 .92338 .20647 1.2678 2.1322 1.00 3.00
4 3.00 28 2.1429 1.14550 .21648 1.6987 2.5870 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.1408 1.05959 .12575 1.8900 2.3916 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 3.0435 .87792 .18306 2.6638 3.4231 1.00 4.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.6500 1.34849 .30153 2.0189 3.2811 1.00 5.00
5 3.00 28 2.8929 1.19689 .22619 2.4288 3.3570 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8732 1.14555 .13595 2.6021 3.1444 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 2.0435 .56232 .11725 1.8003 2.2866 1.00 3.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 1.9500 .68633 .15347 1.6288 2.2712 1.00 3.00
6 3.00 28 1.9643 .74447 .14069 1.6756 2.2530 1.00 3.00
Total 71 1.9859 .66532 .07896 1.8284 2.1434 1.00 3.00
Physical 1.00 23 3.6087 .98807 .20603 3.1814 4.0360 1.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.9000 1.44732 .32363 2.2226 3.5774 1.00 5.00
7 3.00 28 3.1786 1.30678 .24696 2.6719 3.6853 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2394 1.27015 .15074 2.9388 3.5401 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 3.6957 1.29456 .26993 3.1358 4.2555 1.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.9000 1.48324 .33166 2.2058 3.5942 1.00 5.00
8 3.00 28 3.2500 1.55456 .29378 2.6472 3.8528 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2958 1.46769 .17418 2.9484 3.6432 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 2.0435 .87792 .18306 1.6638 2.4231 1.00 4.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 2.1000 1.07115 .23952 1.5987 2.6013 1.00 4.00
9 3.00 28 1.8929 .87514 .16539 1.5535 2.2322 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.0000 .92582 .10987 1.7809 2.2191 1.00 4.00
Physical 1.00 23 1.5217 .51075 .10650 1.3009 1.7426 1.00 2.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 1.6500 .48936 .10942 1.4210 1.8790 1.00 2.00
10 3.00 28 1.7857 .41786 .07897 1.6237 1.9477 1.00 2.00
147
Total 71 1.6620 .47641 .05654 1.5492 1.7747 1.00 2.00
Physical 1.00 23 3.5652 1.19947 .25011 3.0465 4.0839 2.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 3.1500 1.13671 .25418 2.6180 3.6820 1.00 5.00
11 3.00 28 3.4286 1.03382 .19537 3.0277 3.8294 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.3944 1.11456 .13227 3.1306 3.6582 1.00 5.00
Physical 1.00 23 1.2174 .42174 .08794 1.0350 1.3998 1.00 2.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 1.3000 .47016 .10513 1.0800 1.5200 1.00 2.00
12 3.00 28 1.3929 .49735 .09399 1.2000 1.5857 1.00 2.00
Total 71 1.3099 .46573 .05527 1.1996 1.4201 1.00 2.00
Physical 1.00 23 4.5217 .51075 .10650 4.3009 4.7426 4.00 5.00
_stock_ 2.00 20 4.6000 .50262 .11239 4.3648 4.8352 4.00 5.00
13 3.00 28 4.3571 .48795 .09221 4.1679 4.5464 4.00 5.00
Total 71 4.4789 .50311 .05971 4.3598 4.5980 4.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Physical_s Between Groups 4.036 2 2.018 .956 .390
tock_1 Within Groups 143.542 68 2.111
Total 147.577 70
Physical_s Between Groups 1.570 2 .785 1.864 .163
tock_2 Within Groups 28.627 68 .421
Total 30.197 70
Physical_s Between Groups 16.063 2 8.031 9.002 .000
Total 76.732 70
Total 78.592 70
Physical_s Between Groups 1.674 2 .837 .631 .535
Total 91.859 70
148
Physical_s Between Groups .115 2 .058 .127 .881
Total 30.986 70
Total 112.930 70
Total 150.789 70
Total 60.000 70
Physical_s Between Groups .884 2 .442 2.003 .143
Total 15.887 70
Physical_s Between Groups 1.898 2 .949 .759 .472
Total 86.958 70
Total 15.183 70
Physical_s Between Groups .751 2 .375 1.504 .230
Total 17.718 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Predictive management by both the

companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking different designation
categories. As expected, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of fit level
(p>.005) for variables Physical_stock_3 and Physical_stock_4. Thus it revealed that
there is significant difference in the views of respondents regarding Physical
Stockroom across designation categories and the customers of designation group
supervisor group is having better perception.
149
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards important points

regarding Importance across designation categories.
Table-4.33: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for tracking measure

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviat Std. Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean ion Error Bound Bound m m
Import 1.00 23 4.2174 .51843 .10810 3.9932 4.4416 3.00 5.00
ant_1 2.00 20 3.9500 .75915 .16975 3.5947 4.3053 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.9643 .57620 .10889 3.7409 4.1877 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.0423 .61960 .07353 3.8956 4.1889 2.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 4.3913 .72232 .15061 4.0790 4.7037 2.00 5.00
ant_2 2.00 20 4.3000 .47016 .10513 4.0800 4.5200 4.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.0357 .74447 .14069 3.7470 4.3244 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.2254 .68028 .08073 4.0643 4.3864 2.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 3.4348 1.2367 .25789 2.9000 3.9696 1.00 5.00
ant_3 2.00 20 3.9500 .99868 .22331 3.4826 4.4174 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.6071 1.1001 .20791 3.1806 4.0337 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.6479 1.1224 .13321 3.3822 3.9136 1.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 4.5217 .51075 .10650 4.3009 4.7426 4.00 5.00
ant_4 2.00 20 4.4000 .50262 .11239 4.1648 4.6352 4.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.1071 .56695 .10714 3.8873 4.3270 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3239 .55484 .06585 4.1926 4.4553 2.00 5.00
150
Import 1.00 23 4.0435 .82453 .17193 3.6869 4.4000 2.00 5.00
ant_5 2.00 20 3.6500 1.2258 .27410 3.0763 4.2237 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.5000 1.1055 .20893 3.0713 3.9287 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.7183 1.0714 .12716 3.4647 3.9719 1.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 4.6957 .47047 .09810 4.4922 4.8991 4.00 5.00
ant_6 2.00 20 4.3500 .74516 .16662 4.0013 4.6987 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 4.1786 .94491 .17857 3.8122 4.5450 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3944 .78338 .09297 4.2089 4.5798 2.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 3.5652 1.0368 .21620 3.1168 4.0136 2.00 5.00
ant_7 2.00 20 3.1000 1.1192 .25026 2.5762 3.6238 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.1429 1.0789 .20389 2.7245 3.5612 2.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2676 1.0817 .12838 3.0116 3.5237 2.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 3.0000 1.0000 .20851 2.5676 3.4324 1.00 5.00
ant_8 2.00 20 2.5000 .76089 .17014 2.1439 2.8561 2.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.6429 1.2827 .24242 2.1455 3.1403 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.7183 1.0149 .12716 2.4647 2.9719 1.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 2.9130 1.2761 .26609 2.3612 3.4649 1.00 5.00
ant_9 2.00 20 2.5500 .99868 .22331 2.0826 3.0174 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.8929 1.1655 .22026 2.4409 3.3448 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8028 1.1541 .13697 2.5296 3.0760 1.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 2.6522 1.2652 .26382 2.1051 3.1993 1.00 5.00
ant_10 2.00 20 2.2000 .95145 .21275 1.7547 2.6453 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7500 1.1426 .21593 2.3069 3.1931 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.5634 1.1430 .13566 2.2928 2.8339 1.00 5.00
Import 1.00 23 3.3913 1.1961 .24942 2.8740 3.9086 1.00 5.00
ant_11 2.00 20 2.9500 1.0990 .24575 2.4356 3.4644 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7500 1.0046 .18986 2.3604 3.1396 2.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0141 1.1147 .13230 2.7502 3.2779 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
151
Sum of Mean
Import Between Groups 1.046 2 .523 1.377 .259
Total 26.873 70
Import Between Groups 1.752 2 .876 1.944 .151
Total 32.394 70
Total 88.197 70
Total 21.549 70
Total 80.366 70
Total 42.958 70
Total 81.915 70
Total 80.366 70
Total 93.239 70
Total 91.465 70
152
Total 86.986 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Importance by both the companies for spare

parts is being analysed by taking different designation categories. As expected, the
analysis revealed a significant main effect of fit level (p>.005) for variable
Important_4. Thus it revealed that there is significant difference in the views of
respondents regarding Importance across designation categories and the respondnets
of designation group supervisor is having better perception

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Visual inspection

points regarding Visual inspection across designation categories.
Table-4.34: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for Visual inspection

Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Visual 1.00 23 2.5217 1.16266 .24243 2.0190 3.0245 1.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 20 2.5000 .94591 .21151 2.0573 2.9427 1.00 5.00
1 3.00 28 2.0000 .86066 .16265 1.6663 2.3337 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3099 1.00842 .11968 2.0712 2.5485 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 23 2.9130 1.27611 .26609 2.3612 3.4649 1.00 5.00
153
_insp_ 2.00 20 2.6000 .99472 .22243 2.1345 3.0655 1.00 5.00
2 3.00 28 2.9286 1.11981 .21162 2.4944 3.3628 2.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8310 1.13372 .13455 2.5626 3.0993 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 23 4.5652 .50687 .10569 4.3460 4.7844 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 20 4.3500 .48936 .10942 4.1210 4.5790 4.00 5.00
3 3.00 28 4.2500 .44096 .08333 4.0790 4.4210 4.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3803 .48891 .05802 4.2646 4.4960 4.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 23 3.0435 1.33070 .27747 2.4680 3.6189 1.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 20 2.6500 1.03999 .23255 2.1633 3.1367 1.00 5.00
4 3.00 28 3.0000 1.12217 .21207 2.5649 3.4351 2.00 5.00
Total 71 2.9155 1.16798 .13861 2.6390 3.1920 1.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 23 4.5217 .51075 .10650 4.3009 4.7426 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 20 4.4000 .50262 .11239 4.1648 4.6352 4.00 5.00
5 3.00 28 4.1429 .59094 .11168 3.9137 4.3720 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3380 .55917 .06636 4.2057 4.4704 2.00 5.00
Visual 1.00 23 4.5652 .50687 .10569 4.3460 4.7844 4.00 5.00
_insp_ 2.00 20 4.3000 .86450 .19331 3.8954 4.7046 2.00 5.00
6 3.00 28 4.1071 .91649 .17320 3.7518 4.4625 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3099 .80341 .09535 4.1197 4.5000 2.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Visual_i Between Groups 4.444 2 2.222 2.264 .112
nsp_1 Within Groups 66.739 68 .981
Total 71.183 70
Visual_i Between Groups 1.489 2 .744 .572 .567
nsp_2 Within Groups 88.483 68 1.301
Total 89.972 70
Visual_i Between Groups 1.280 2 .640 2.817 .067
Total 16.732 70
154
Visual_i Between Groups 1.986 2 .993 .722 .489
nsp_4 Within Groups 93.507 68 1.375
Total 95.493 70
Visual_i Between Groups 1.920 2 .960 3.269 .044
Total 21.887 70
Visual_i Between Groups 2.652 2 1.326 2.120 .128
Total 45.183 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Visual inspection of Important points

regarding Visual inspection in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed
by taking different designation categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed
insignificant main effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that
there is insignificant difference in the views of different designation group
respondents regarding Visual inspection by both the companies for spare parts.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Computerization

Assessment across designation categories.
Table-4.35: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for Computerization

Assessment
Descriptives
95%
Std. Confidence
Deviati Std. Interval for Minimu Maximu
N Mean on Error Mean m m
155
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Comp 1.00 23 4.3043 .87567 .18259 3.9257 4.6830 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 4.2500 .78640 .17584 3.8820 4.6180 2.00 5.00
ss_1 3.00 28 4.3214 .66964 .12655 4.0618 4.5811 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.2958 .76335 .09059 4.1151 4.4765 2.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 4.6957 .47047 .09810 4.4922 4.8991 4.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 4.1500 1.0399 .23255 3.6633 4.6367 2.00 5.00
ss_2 3.00 28 4.1071 .99403 .18785 3.7217 4.4926 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.3099 .90383 .10726 4.0959 4.5238 2.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 4.1739 .98406 .20519 3.7484 4.5995 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 4.1000 1.1652 .26057 3.5546 4.6454 2.00 5.00
ss_3 3.00 28 4.1429 1.0079 .19048 3.7520 4.5337 2.00 5.00
Total 71 4.1408 1.0322 .12251 3.8965 4.3852 2.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 3.1304 1.0997 .22932 2.6549 3.6060 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 2.8000 1.3218 .29558 2.1813 3.4187 1.00 5.00
ss_4 3.00 28 3.1071 1.2863 .24310 2.6083 3.6059 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0282 1.2302 .14600 2.7370 3.3194 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 3.1304 1.0997 .22932 2.6549 3.6060 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 2.5500 1.2763 .28539 1.9527 3.1473 1.00 5.00
ss_5 3.00 28 2.8571 1.3253 .25047 2.3432 3.3711 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8592 1.2455 .14782 2.5643 3.1540 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 3.1739 1.1140 .23230 2.6922 3.6557 2.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 2.9000 1.4104 .31539 2.2399 3.5601 1.00 5.00
ss_6 3.00 28 2.9643 1.3466 .25449 2.4421 3.4865 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.0141 1.2816 .15211 2.7107 3.3174 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 3.8261 1.1140 .23230 3.3443 4.3078 1.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 2.8500 1.3484 .30153 2.2189 3.4811 1.00 5.00
ss_7 3.00 28 2.9643 1.3738 .25964 2.4315 3.4970 1.00 5.00
Total 71 3.2113 1.3407 .15912 2.8939 3.5286 1.00 5.00
Comp 1.00 23 3.2174 1.0853 .22630 2.7481 3.6867 1.00 5.00
_asse 2.00 20 2.5500 1.3945 .31183 1.8973 3.2027 1.00 5.00
156
ss_8 3.00 28 2.6786 1.4920 .28197 2.1000 3.2571 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8169 1.3555 .16087 2.4961 3.1377 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Comp_ Between Groups .062 2 .031 .052 .950
assess_ Within Groups 40.727 68 .599
1 Total 40.789 70
Comp_ Between Groups 5.085 2 2.542 3.319 .042
assess_ Within Groups 52.098 68 .766
2 Total 57.183 70
assess_ Within Groups 74.533 68 1.096
3 Total 74.592 70
Comp_ Between Groups 1.456 2 .728 .474 .625
4 Total 105.944 70
5 Total 108.592 70
6 Total 114.986 70
7 Total 125.831 70
8 Total 128.620 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Computerization Assessment by both the

157
categories. As expected, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of fit level
(p>.005) for variable Comp_assess_2. Thus it revealed that there is significant
difference in the views of respondents regarding Computerization Assessment across
designation categories and the respondents of designation group supervisor is having
better perception.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Tracking measures to

improve store part inventory across designation categories.
Table-4.36: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for Tracking

measures to improve store part inventory
Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviatio Lower Upper Minimu Maximu
N Mean n Std. Error Bound Bound m m
Track_ 1.00 23 3.4783 1.44189 .30066 2.8547 4.1018 1.00 5.00
meas_1 2.00 20 2.5000 1.35724 .30349 1.8648 3.1352 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7857 1.54817 .29258 2.1854 3.3860 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.9296 1.49594 .17754 2.5755 3.2837 1.00 5.00
Track_ 1.00 23 3.2174 1.24157 .25889 2.6805 3.7543 1.00 5.00
meas_2 2.00 20 2.7500 1.37171 .30672 2.1080 3.3920 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7143 1.53616 .29031 2.1186 3.3099 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8873 1.39948 .16609 2.5561 3.2186 1.00 5.00
158
Track_ 1.00 23 1.6522 .83168 .17342 1.2925 2.0118 1.00 3.00
meas_3 2.00 20 1.7000 .65695 .14690 1.3925 2.0075 1.00 3.00
3.00 28 1.7143 .80999 .15307 1.4002 2.0284 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.6901 .76703 .09103 1.5086 1.8717 1.00 4.00
Track_ 1.00 23 1.6087 1.03305 .21541 1.1620 2.0554 1.00 5.00
meas_4 2.00 20 1.7000 .80131 .17918 1.3250 2.0750 1.00 3.00
3.00 28 1.7500 1.07583 .20331 1.3328 2.1672 1.00 5.00
Total 71 1.6901 .97967 .11627 1.4583 1.9220 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Track_ Between Groups 11.194 2 5.597 2.617 .080
Total 156.648 70
Total 137.099 70
Track_ Between Groups .051 2 .026 .043 .958
Total 41.183 70
Track_ Between Groups .255 2 .127 .129 .879
Total 67.183 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Tracking measures to improve store part

inventory of Important points regarding Tracking measures to improve store part
inventory in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking different
designation categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main effect
of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant
difference in the views of different designation group respondents regarding Tracking
measures to improve store part inventory by both the companies for spare parts.
159
H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Rules for effective

spare part management across designation categories.
Table-4.36: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for towards Rules for
effective spare part management
Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Std. Upper
Deviat Std. Lower Boun Minimu Maximu
N Mean ion Error Bound d m m
Rule_effe 1.00 23 2.0435 .82453 .17193 1.6869 2.400 1.00 3.00
c_mgt_1 2.00 20 2.4000 .82078 .18353 2.0159 2.781 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.4643 .88117 .16652 2.1226 2.806 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.3099 .85509 .10148 2.1075 2.512 1.00 5.00
Rule_effe 1.00 23 1.6957 1.1845 .24700 1.1834 2.207 1.00 4.00
c_mgt_2 2.00 20 1.7500 1.1180 .25000 1.2267 2.273 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 1.8214 1.0904 .20608 1.3986 2.244 1.00 5.00
Total 71 1.7606 1.1143 .13225 1.4968 2.024 1.00 5.00
Rule_effe 1.00 23 1.7391 1.1368 .23706 1.2475 2.230 1.00 4.00
c_mgt_3 2.00 20 1.6500 .93330 .20869 1.2132 2.086 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 1.4286 .79015 .14932 1.1222 1.735 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.5915 .94985 .11273 1.3667 1.816 1.00 4.00
160
Rule_effe 1.00 23 1.5652 .72777 .15175 1.2505 1.879 1.00 4.00
c_mgt_4 2.00 20 2.0000 1.2139 .27145 1.4319 2.568 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 1.9643 1.2013 .22702 1.4985 2.430 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.8451 1.0776 .12790 1.5900 2.100 1.00 4.00
Rule_effe 1.00 23 1.9565 .76742 .16002 1.6247 2.288 1.00 4.00
c_mgt_5 2.00 20 2.1500 1.1821 .26433 1.5968 2.703 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 1.7500 .88715 .16766 1.4060 2.094 1.00 5.00
Total 71 1.9296 .94603 .11227 1.7057 2.153 1.00 5.00
Rule_effe 1.00 23 2.3043 1.2945 .26993 1.7445 2.864 1.00 5.00
c_mgt_6 2.00 20 2.2000 1.1050 .24709 1.6828 2.717 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 1.8929 .83174 .15718 1.5703 2.215 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.1127 1.0763 .12774 1.8579 2.367 1.00 5.00
Rule_effe 1.00 23 2.0435 1.1069 .23081 1.5648 2.522 1.00 4.00
c_mgt_7 2.00 20 1.9500 .68633 .15347 1.6288 2.271 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 1.8571 .70523 .13328 1.5837 2.130 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9437 .84325 .10008 1.7441 2.143 1.00 4.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Rule_effe Between Groups 2.462 2 1.231 1.718 .187
c_mgt_1 Within Groups 48.721 68 .716
Total 51.183 70
Rule_effe Between Groups .203 2 .101 .080 .924
c_mgt_2 Within Groups 86.727 68 1.275
Total 86.930 70
Rule_effe Between Groups 1.313 2 .657 .722 .490
Total 63.155 70
Total 81.296 70
161
Rule_effe Between Groups 1.891 2 .946 1.058 .353
Total 62.648 70
Total 81.099 70
Rule_effe Between Groups .440 2 .220 .303 .740
Total 49.775 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on Rules for effective spare part management

of Important points regarding Rules for effective spare part management in both the
categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant main effect of fit level
(p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is insignificant difference in the
views of different designation group respondents regarding Rules for effective spare
part management by both the companies for spare parts.

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Important points

regarding Predictive management across designation categories.
162
Table-4.37: Measuring Designation wise Group difference for towards important
points regarding Predictive management
Descriptives
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Std. Mean
Deviati Std. Lower Upper Minim Maxim
N Mean on Error Bound Bound um um
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 1.9130 .66831 .13935 1.6240 2.2020 1.00 4.00
oMgt_1 2.00 20 1.8000 .89443 .20000 1.3814 2.2186 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.0357 1.0709 .20238 1.6205 2.4510 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9296 .89959 .10676 1.7166 2.1425 1.00 4.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.7391 .61919 .12911 2.4714 3.0069 2.00 4.00
oMgt_2 2.00 20 2.5500 .88704 .19835 2.1349 2.9651 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.7143 .80999 .15307 2.4002 3.0284 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.6761 .77043 .09143 2.4937 2.8584 1.00 4.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.5652 .84348 .17588 2.2005 2.9300 1.00 5.00
oMgt_3 2.00 20 3.0000 .97333 .21764 2.5445 3.4555 2.00 5.00
3.00 28 3.0714 1.2745 .24086 2.5772 3.5656 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.8873 1.0763 .12774 2.6326 3.1421 1.00 5.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.3478 .88465 .18446 1.9653 2.7304 1.00 4.00
oMgt_4 2.00 20 2.2000 .83351 .18638 1.8099 2.5901 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.1786 .94491 .17857 1.8122 2.5450 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.2394 .88584 .10513 2.0298 2.4491 1.00 4.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.6522 .93462 .19488 2.2480 3.0563 1.00 5.00
oMgt_5 2.00 20 2.7500 .96655 .21613 2.2976 3.2024 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.4286 1.0338 .19537 2.0277 2.8294 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.5915 .97947 .11624 2.3597 2.8234 1.00 5.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.2609 1.0538 .21975 1.8051 2.7166 1.00 4.00
oMgt_6 2.00 20 2.5000 1.0000 .22361 2.0320 2.9680 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.3214 1.1564 .21854 1.8730 2.7698 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3521 1.0703 .12703 2.0988 2.6055 1.00 4.00
163
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.0000 1.0871 .22668 1.5299 2.4701 1.00 4.00
oMgt_7 2.00 20 2.0500 1.0990 .24575 1.5356 2.5644 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 1.7500 .96705 .18276 1.3750 2.1250 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.9155 1.0384 .12325 1.6697 2.1613 1.00 4.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.4783 1.3440 .28024 1.8971 3.0594 1.00 5.00
oMgt_8 2.00 20 2.8500 1.3088 .29267 2.2374 3.4626 1.00 5.00
3.00 28 2.7143 1.4364 .27147 2.1573 3.2713 1.00 5.00
Total 71 2.6761 1.3604 .16145 2.3541 2.9981 1.00 5.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 2.3043 1.0632 .22170 1.8446 2.7641 1.00 4.00
oMgt_9 2.00 20 2.4000 1.0954 .24495 1.8873 2.9127 1.00 4.00
3.00 28 2.3571 .95119 .17976 1.9883 2.7260 1.00 4.00
Total 71 2.3521 1.0155 .12053 2.1117 2.5925 1.00 4.00
Imp_Pr 1.00 23 1.8696 1.1403 .23778 1.3764 2.3627 1.00 4.00
oMgt_1 2.00 20 2.0500 .99868 .22331 1.5826 2.5174 1.00 4.00
0 3.00 28 1.6071 .99403 .18785 1.2217 1.9926 1.00 4.00
Total 71 1.8169 1.0462 .12416 1.5693 2.0645 1.00 4.00
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
Imp_ Between Groups .658 2 .329 .399 .672
ProM Within Groups 55.990 68 .823
gt_1 Total 56.648 70
gt_2 Total 41.549 70
Imp_ Between Groups 3.589 2 1.795 1.574 .215
ProM Within Groups 77.509 68 1.140
gt_3 Total 81.099 70
164
gt_4 Total 54.930 70
Imp_ Between Groups 1.330 2 .665 .687 .506
gt_5 Total 67.155 70
gt_6 Total 80.197 70
gt_7 Total 75.493 70
gt_8 Total 129.549 70
gt_9 Total 72.197 70
Imp_ Between Groups 2.382 2 1.191 1.091 .342
gt_10 Total 76.620 70
ANOVA on respondent’s perceptions on important points regarding Predictive

management of Important points regarding Important points regarding Predictive
management in both the companies for spare parts is being analysed by taking
different designation categories. As unexpected, the analysis revealed insignificant
main effect of fit level (p>.005) for all variables. Thus it revealed that there is
insignificant difference in the views of different designation group respondents
regarding Important points regarding Predictive management by both the companies
for spare parts.
165

Chapter 4

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

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter -4

4.1 Demographical profile

Figure-4.2: Age wise respondents

Figure-4.3: Gender wise respondents

Figure-4.4: Qualification wise respondents

Figure-4.4: Designation wise respondents

Table-4.5: Sufficient stock

Figure-4.5: Sufficient stock

Figure-4.6: Perpetual inventory system is in place for Accounting

Figure-4.7: Stores Inventory control practices are effective

Figure-4.9: Reason for performing predictive maintenance

calls for repairs

preventive maintenance program

Table-4.10: Concerns of predictive maintenance

Figure-4.11: Time duration for considering a predictive maintenance program

To identify key variables in Material Master for Physical Stockroom multivariate

Table-4.12: Physical stockroom

To identify key variables in Material Master for Importance multivariate regression

Table-4.13: Multiple regression analysis for importance

The regression results show that:

To identify key variables in Material Master for Visual inspection multivariate

Table-4.14: Multiple regression analysis for Visual inspection

To identify key variables in Material Master for Computerization Assessment

To identify key variables in Material Master for Computerization Assessment

H1: Identification of slow moving, fast moving, rarely moving and

To identify key variables in movement of stock multivariate regression analysis has

Table-4.17: Multiple regression analysis for movement of stock

H1: Identification of Important points regarding Predictive management for

To identify key variables in movement of stock multivariate regression analysis has

Table-4.18: Multiple regression analysis for effective spare part management

4.5 Significance and Measurement of differences

variables of Binani and Vikram cement. Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Table-4.19: Measuring gap by independent sample t test

variables of Binani and Vikram cement. Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Independent Samples Test

between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.

Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

Table-4.21: Measuring gap by independent sample t test

between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.

Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Independent Samples Test

between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.

Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Independent Samples Test

between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.

Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Table-4.24: Measuring gap by independent sample t test

Independent Samples Test

between the categories of identified variables of Binani and Vikram cement.

Subsequently, following hypothesis is made:

H1: There is a significant difference in the Systematic proactive approach to

Independent Samples Test

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Physical stock across

Table-4.26: Measuring Age wise Group difference for physical stock

Further, ANOVA analysis is conducted to measure the differences amongst the

H1: A significant difference exists in perception towards Importance across

Table-4.27: Measuring Age wise Group difference for Importance