Free Essay

Rm Research Paper

In:

Submitted By daniyal07
Words 6798
Pages 28
Human Resources for SME Competitive Advantage: A Pakistan Survey
Questionnaier

12/18/2014
Abdul Salam Khan - 10657
Sara Salim -
Amber –
Hina –
Faiza Naeem -
Daniyal Hassan -

Course Fascilitator: Dr. Naveed R. Khan

Introduction:

By Amber

Problem Statement:

The intention of this report is to focus on the comparative analysis of Human Resources for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) in Pakistan.

Past researches have primarily focused on the relationship between individual human resource (HR) practices and firm performance, but the recent research studies are based on different factors of Human Resource practices and their impact on performance outcomes.

In Pakistan, Human Resource Management is in developing stage & most of the companies are trying to adopt the best practices of it.

Research Objective: The objective of this report is to highlight the comparative research of Human Reources factors in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Pakistan.

Research Question: In view of the above discussion the following research question have been constructed:

Q1. To what extend do the firm’s apply Human Resource Practices in SMEs.

This research question examines the comparative analysis of adoption of HR practices in SMEs.

Conclusion:

SMEs played a vital and significant role in the development of the country’s economy. Most developed countries provide facilities to develop the SMEs, which assist the country’s economy.

Whereas, Pakistan’s economy is represent about 90 percent of all types of SMEs, which provide 78% of non-agricultural labor. This SME sector gave 90% contribution to the GDP and out of which 25% from export revenue. Through SMEs we strengthen and bought into account that the human resource management practices helps the overall economy.

Literature Review:

By Amber

Variables:

Independent Variables:

Staffing

Job / Work Design

Training & Development

Performance Appraisal

Compensation

Career Planning

Health & Safety

Dependent Variables:

Organizational Performance

Organizational Success Factor

HRM Outcomes

Legal & Regulatory Evvironment

Industry Characteristics

Data Analysis:

Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 18 was used for data analysis. The statistical procedure we use is compare mean (t-test). For the reliability of data we utilize cronbach coefficient alpha.

References:

BY ASK

Results & Interpretation:

RELIABILITY TEST:

1. STAFFING:
|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |42 |97.7 |
| |Excludeda |1 |2.3 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. |
| |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%.From them valid cases are 42 with 97.7% and 1 is excluded with 2.3%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.485 |7 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Job vacancies are filled from within|19.55 |9.912 |.176 |.469 |
|the organization | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |18.74 |10.881 |.083 |.496 |
|the basis of their job knowledge and| | | | |
|experience | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |18.83 |8.630 |.420 |.365 |
|the basis of their ability to | | | | |
|collaborate and work with others. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |18.67 |8.715 |.377 |.382 |
|the basis of their potential to | | | | |
|learn | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |19.24 |7.747 |.582 |.280 |
|the basis of their fit with the | | | | |
|organization's culture. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |19.71 |9.526 |.130 |.498 |
|the basis of having the right | | | | |
|connections (Such as through family,| | | | |
|school, regioin, government) | | | | |
|In hiring of prompting employees are|20.26 |9.759 |.014 |.583 |
|assessed against criteria set by the| | | | |
|organization rather than on the | | | | |
|manager's personal preference. | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.
Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable) Here reliability test shown that the Cronbach’ Alpha value is 0.48 which is less than 0.5 which is unacceptable. In order to make it acceptable we need to remove those variables (In hiring of prompting employees are assessed against criteria set by the organization rather than on the manager's personal preference.) who are violating reliability and will perform procedure again.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.584 |6 |

| |
| |
| |
|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Job vacancies are filled from within|17.28 |6.873 |.430 |.491 |
|the organization | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |16.44 |8.776 |.117 |.605 |
|the basis of their job knowledge and| | | | |
|experience | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |16.56 |6.872 |.419 |.496 |
|the basis of their ability to | | | | |
|collaborate and work with others. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |16.37 |7.620 |.230 |.578 |
|the basis of their potential to | | | | |
|learn | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |16.95 |6.664 |.442 |.483 |
|the basis of their fit with the | | | | |
|organization's culture. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |17.44 |6.729 |.293 |.559 |
|the basis of having the right | | | | |
|connections (Such as through family,| | | | |
|school, regioin, government) | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.
Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
After removing the variables Cronbach’s Alpha score became 0.58 which is also less than 0.6, therefore we will remove the variable (Employees are hired or prompted on the basis of their job knowledge and experience) whose value is greater than 0.5 in order to get acceptable reliability score.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.605 |5 |

| |
|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Job vacancies are filled from within|13.51 |6.208 |.406 |.528 |
|the organization | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |12.79 |6.360 |.357 |.552 |
|the basis of their ability to | | | | |
|collaborate and work with others. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or promoted on |12.60 |6.626 |.273 |.593 |
|the basis of their potential to | | | | |
|learn | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |13.19 |5.726 |.493 |.479 |
|the basis of their fit with the | | | | |
|organization's culture. | | | | |
|Employees are hired or prompted on |13.67 |5.939 |.297 |.592 |
|the basis of having the right | | | | |
|connections (Such as through family,| | | | |
|school, regioin, government) | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
After removing the variable whose value was greater, we get the value of Cronbach’s Alpha 0.605.

2. JOB/WORK DESIGN:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |42 |97.7 |
| |Excludeda |1 |2.3 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%.From them valid cases are 42 with 97.7% and 1 is excluded with 2.3%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.667 |9 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Employees participate in some type |25.48 |18.792 |-.028 |.715 |
|of off-the-job problem solving | | | | |
|groups such as quality circles or | | | | |
|employee involvement groups | | | | |
|Non-Managerial employees are allowed|25.57 |15.568 |.351 |.638 |
|to make decisions as part of their | | | | |
|job. | | | | |
|Employees are asked by their |25.19 |13.621 |.624 |.568 |
|supervisoe to participate in | | | | |
|decisions affecting their work. | | | | |
|Employees teams or group are |24.76 |15.064 |.462 |.612 |
|utilized in the conduct of work. | | | | |
|The duties and responsibilities of |24.93 |15.141 |.561 |.597 |
|jobs are detailed precisely. | | | | |
|Analysis of jobs is undertaken |25.14 |15.491 |.427 |.621 |
|regularly and job descriptions | | | | |
|updated. | | | | |
|Job descriptions allow the use of a |25.17 |16.825 |.343 |.642 |
|broad range of the employees skills | | | | |
|and abilities | | | | |
|The job duties are shaped more by |25.26 |17.808 |.099 |.690 |
|the employee than by a specific job | | | | |
|description | | | | |
|Flexible work practices (Such as |25.36 |15.796 |.327 |.644 |
|flexible working hours, home | | | | |
|working, telecommuting, job sharing)| | | | |
|are available to emplyee | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.667 which is according to our requirement of reliability.

3. TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.858 |9 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|There are formal training programs |25.14 |32.742 |.542 |.846 |
|to teach new employees the skills | | | | |
|they need to perform their jobs. | | | | |
|Employees receive training to |25.02 |31.928 |.620 |.839 |
|perform multiple tasks so that they | | | | |
|can fill in for others if necessary | | | | |
|Employees receive training on team |25.23 |31.707 |.581 |.843 |
|building and interpersonal relations| | | | |
|Employees receive training on our |24.98 |31.452 |.600 |.841 |
|organizations values and ways of | | | | |
|doing things | | | | |
|Employees receive training in order |25.05 |30.045 |.596 |.842 |
|to understand our business. | | | | |
|Formal training programs are offered|25.47 |31.779 |.646 |.837 |
|to employees in order to increase | | | | |
|their promotability in this | | | | |
|organizations. | | | | |
|Training programs are developed on |25.40 |33.054 |.555 |.846 |
|the basis of assessed training needs| | | | |
|of the organizations. | | | | |
|Training is available to any |25.19 |29.869 |.558 |.848 |
|employee who is interested | | | | |
|The effectiveness of training |24.95 |30.569 |.596 |.841 |
|programs is monitored regularly. | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.858 which is showing good reliabilityand fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005, Bunch& Bunch2007 and Nulley1978.
.

4. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%.From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.338 |8 |

| |
|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.759 |7 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Performance appraisals are based on |19.51 |15.970 |.525 |.720 |
|input from multiple sources | | | | |
|(Supervisors, Peers, Subordinates, | | | | |
|customers, etc.) | | | | |
|Long-term (more than a year) |19.58 |18.297 |.275 |.768 |
|criteria are used in the | | | | |
|performance appraisal system. | | | | |
|The performance appraisal |19.21 |17.646 |.383 |.748 |
|process is standardized and | | | | |
|documented. | | | | |
|The performance appraisal is |19.74 |13.671 |.642 |.689 |
|discussed with the employee | | | | |
|The performance appraisal is |19.42 |15.154 |.585 |.705 |
|used to determine an employee's | | | | |
|pay | | | | |
|The performance appraisal is |19.19 |17.965 |.392 |.747 |
|used to determine an employee's | | | | |
|promotability | | | | |
|The performance appraisal is |19.67 |15.749 |.532 |.718 |
|used to determine an employee's | | | | |
|training needs | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.759 which is showing good reliabilityand fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005, Bunch& Bunch2007 and Nulley1978.

5. COMPENSATION:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach'sAlphaa |N of Items |
|-.418 |5 |
|a. The value is negative due to a |
|negative average covariance among |
|items. This violates reliability model |
|assumptions. You may want to check item|
|codings. |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |13.56 |3.205 |-.194 |-.184a |
|on the basis of the individual's | | | | |
|job performance | | | | |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |13.30 |3.597 |-.146 |-.305a |
|on the basis of how well our | | | | |
|organization performs | | | | |
|Seniority or length of service, |13.77 |4.421 |-.378 |.063 |
|rather than merit or performance, | | | | |
|determines increase in base pay. | | | | |
|Cost-of-living adjustments or |13.70 |2.359 |.254 |-1.106a |
|legislated wage adjustments | | | | |
|determine increases in base pay. | | | | |
|An employee's base pay depends on |13.49 |2.922 |-.117 |-.369a |
|the importance of his or her job to | | | | |
|the organization. | | | | |
|a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. You|
|may want to check item codings. |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s alpha value is -0.418 which is unacceptable therefore we will remove the variables (Seniority or length of service, rather than merit or performance, determines increase in base pay)whose value is greater than -.418 in order to make it acceptable.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.063 |4 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |10.37 |2.763 |.056 |-.008a |
|on the basis of the individual's | | | | |
|job performance | | | | |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |10.12 |4.010 |-.077 |.171 |
|on the basis of how well our | | | | |
|organization performs | | | | |
|Cost-of-living adjustments or |10.51 |2.922 |.245 |-.269a |
|legislated wage adjustments | | | | |
|determine increases in base pay. | | | | |
|An employee's base pay depends on |10.30 |3.359 |-.068 |.222 |
|the importance of his or her job to | | | | |
|the organization. | | | | |
|a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. You|
|may want to check item codings. |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
After removing the variable, here reliability Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.63 which is unacceptable therefore we will remove the variables (An employee's base pay depends on the importance of his or her job to the organization)whose value is greater than 0.63 in order to make it acceptable.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.222 |3 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |6.91 |.991 |.391 |-.880a |
|on the basis of the individual's | | | | |
|job performance | | | | |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |6.65 |2.471 |.089 |.218 |
|on the basis of how well our | | | | |
|organization performs | | | | |
|Cost-of-living adjustments or |7.05 |2.760 |-.057 |.481 |
|legislated wage adjustments | | | | |
|determine increases in base pay. | | | | |
|a. The value is negative due to a negative average covariance among items. This violates reliability model assumptions. You|
|may want to check item codings. |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
After removing the variable, here reliability Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.22 which is unacceptable therefore we will remove the variables(Cost-of-living adjustments or legislated wage adjustments determine increases in base pay) whose value is greater than 0.22 in order to make it acceptable.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.481 |2 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |3.65 |.661 |.340 |. |
|on the basis of the individual's | | | | |
|job performance | | | | |
|Incentives and bonuses are given |3.40 |1.435 |.340 |. |
|on the basis of how well our | | | | |
|organization performs | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
After removing the variable, here reliability Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.481 which is unacceptable as it is less than 0.6

6. CAREER PLANNING:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |42 |97.7 |
| |Excludeda |1 |2.3 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 42 with percentage 97.7% and 1 is excluded with percentage 2.3%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.741 |4 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Career paths are identified for |9.62 |4.437 |.635 |.646 |
|employees in our organization | | | | |
|Employees in our organization |9.45 |3.717 |.592 |.647 |
|are able to seek assistance in | | | | |
|developing their careers. | | | | |
|Employees in this organization |9.60 |4.052 |.482 |.715 |
|who desire promotion have more | | | | |
|than one potential position they | | | | |
|could be prompted to | | | | |
|Career paths favour all experience|9.83 |4.240 |.469 |.718 |
|as against functional | | | | |
|specialization | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.741 which is showing our reliability is acceptable and fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005 and Nulley1978.

7. HEALTH & SAFETY:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

| |
| |
|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.867 |6 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Occupational health and safety is |16.79 |17.312 |.599 |.855 |
|considered a top priority in this| | | | |
|organization. | | | | |
|The occupational health and |17.00 |17.333 |.543 |.864 |
|safety objectives are clearly | | | | |
|understood by our employees. | | | | |
|Our organization actively promotes|16.91 |14.134 |.813 |.815 |
|occupational health and safety | | | | |
|through such activities as health | | | | |
|promotion programs, safety | | | | |
|awareness training programs, and| | | | |
|written/explicit safety rules. | | | | |
|Worker safety is a principal |17.05 |15.093 |.832 |.814 |
|responsibility of the individual | | | | |
|employee in our organization | | | | |
|The principal reason our |17.07 |16.828 |.600 |.855 |
|occupational health programs | | | | |
|exist is compliance with legal | | | | |
|requirements. | | | | |
|Our organization regularly and |17.40 |15.911 |.613 |.855 |
|frequently (e.g., monthly) | | | | |
|conducts worksite health and | | | | |
|safety inspections. | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.867 which is showing good reliability and fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005, Bunch& Bunch2007 and Nulley1978.

8. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |41 |95.3 |
| |Excludeda |2 |4.7 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 41 with percentage 95.3% and 2 are excluded with percentage 4.7%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.756 |13 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Long-term level of profitability |43.45 |51.523 |.516 |.729 |
|Growth rate of sales or revenues |43.43 |51.920 |.606 |.726 |
|Financial strength (liquidity and|43.21 |49.562 |.698 |.714 |
|ability to raise financial | | | | |
|resources) | | | | |
|Public image and goodwill |43.01 |54.006 |.487 |.737 |
|Ability to attract essential |43.26 |52.939 |.483 |.735 |
|employees | | | | |
|Ability to retain essential |43.09 |54.199 |.390 |.742 |
|employees | | | | |
|Employee morale and job |43.06 |52.327 |.606 |.727 |
|satisfaction | | | | |
|Employee commitment to |43.13 |50.663 |.687 |.718 |
|organizational objectives | | | | |
|Productivity |43.06 |53.477 |.590 |.732 |
|Development of new |43.09 |55.849 |.179 |.760 |
|products/services | | | | |
|Quality of products/services |43.13 |50.513 |.627 |.720 |
|Customer satisfaction |43.18 |54.322 |.478 |.739 |
|Market Share |43.12 |44.560 |.151 |.873 |

9. ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS FACTORS:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.824 |14 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|New brand identification |46.70 |39.311 |.588 |.804 |
|Operating efficiency |46.53 |41.826 |.260 |.826 |
|Unique corporate culture |46.60 |41.388 |.468 |.813 |
|New product/service development |46.44 |38.586 |.518 |.807 |
|Effective management of human |46.53 |38.398 |.539 |.806 |
|resources | | | | |
|Competitive Pricing |46.47 |37.445 |.623 |.799 |
|Innovation in marketing rechniques |46.23 |37.754 |.708 |.795 |
|and methods | | | | |
|Customer service |46.21 |39.074 |.574 |.804 |
|A management philosophy that highly |46.26 |42.290 |.292 |.822 |
|values employees. | | | | |
|Technology acquistion |46.23 |39.421 |.412 |.816 |
|Strong emphasis on reserach and |46.37 |37.382 |.478 |.812 |
|development (R&D) | | | | |
|Superior Managers |46.35 |41.137 |.405 |.816 |
|Continuous Improvement |45.93 |41.495 |.372 |.818 |
|Superior Employees |46.23 |43.468 |.149 |.831 |

10. HRM OUTCOMES:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |42 |97.7 |
| |Excludeda |1 |2.3 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 42 with percentage 97.7% and 1 is excluded with percentage 2.3%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.608 |7 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Most employees in this |21.55 |11.034 |-.289 |.765 |
|organization are very satisfied | | | | |
|with their jobs. | | | | |
|Most employees in this |22.10 |9.015 |.026 |.682 |
|organization often think of | | | | |
|quitting | | | | |
|Most employees in this organization |21.26 |8.003 |.438 |.541 |
|feel a great sense of personal | | | | |
|satisfaction when they do their job | | | | |
|well | | | | |
|Most employees in this organization |21.45 |7.034 |.519 |.498 |
|feel bad or unhappywhen they find | | | | |
|that they have performed the work | | | | |
|poorly. | | | | |
|Our HRM practices help our |21.29 |6.502 |.713 |.428 |
|organizaion to have high-performing | | | | |
|employees | | | | |
|Our HRM practices make a positive |21.31 |6.316 |.720 |.417 |
|contribution to the overall | | | | |
|effectiveness of the organization. | | | | |
|Our HRM practices help our company |21.48 |7.524 |.547 |.506 |
|to have employees who are satisfied | | | | |
|with their jobs. | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.608 which is fulfilling requirement of Nulley1978.

11. LEGAL & REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |43 |100.0 |
| |Excludeda |0 |.0 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 43 with percentage 100% and 0 is excluded with percentage 0%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.807 |9 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Tariffs on imports/exports |25.28 |18.777 |.401 |.801 |
|Export aid |25.14 |18.551 |.534 |.785 |
|Antitrust or anti-monopoly |25.05 |18.426 |.573 |.781 |
|regulations | | | | |
|Incentives for operations in |24.93 |18.733 |.484 |.790 |
|designated areas | | | | |
|Regulations for protecting the |25.23 |18.564 |.474 |.791 |
|environment from industrial | | | | |
|wastes | | | | |
|Tax relief or subsidies |24.77 |17.802 |.410 |.805 |
|Special regulatory bodies or |25.14 |16.980 |.773 |.755 |
|legislation for industry | | | | |
|Labor legislation and legislation|25.28 |18.730 |.500 |.788 |
|covering working conditions | | | | |
|Advertising and promotion regulation|25.05 |17.760 |.464 |.795 |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.807 which is showing good reliability and fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005, Bunch& Bunch2007 and Nulley1978.

12. INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS:

|Case Processing Summary |
| |N |% |
|Cases |Valid |35 |81.4 |
| |Excludeda |8 |18.6 |
| |Total |43 |100.0 |
|a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the |
|procedure. |

INTERPRETATION:
Case Processing Summary table is showing the total number of respondents 43 with 100%. From them valid cases are 35 with percentage 81.4% and 8 are excluded with percentage 18.6%.

|Reliability Statistics |
|Cronbach's Alpha |N of Items |
|.804 |10 |

|Item-Total Statistics |
| |Scale Mean if Item |Scale Variance if |Corrected Item-Total |Cronbach's Alpha if |
| |Deleted |Item Deleted |Correlation |Item Deleted |
|Competition for purchases or |32.57 |35.899 |.492 |.785 |
|inputs (such as raw materials, | | | | |
|parts, equipment) | | | | |
|Competition for technical |32.09 |41.081 |.273 |.806 |
|manpower | | | | |
|Rate at which products or services|32.31 |36.751 |.462 |.789 |
|are getting obsolete in the | | | | |
|industry | | | | |
|Competition in promotions, |32.17 |38.440 |.508 |.785 |
|advertising, selling, | | | | |
|distribution | | | | |
|Rate of innovation of new or better|32.11 |38.398 |.423 |.793 |
|operating processes used in | | | | |
|industry | | | | |
|Competition in the quality and |32.34 |34.291 |.604 |.771 |
|variety of products or services | | | | |
|Competition in price of products or|32.11 |38.516 |.383 |.797 |
|services | | | | |
|Rate of innovation of new or better|32.26 |34.903 |.706 |.761 |
|products or services | | | | |
|Competition in delivery and after |32.40 |34.541 |.570 |.775 |
|sales services | | | | |
|Rate of increase of labor |32.60 |38.541 |.375 |.798 |
|productivity in recent years | | | | |

INTERPRETATION:
According to Sacran2005, Reliability score should be greater than 0.6
According to Bunch & Bunch2007, Reliability score should be greater than 0.7
According to Nulley1978, Reliability score should be greater than 0.5.

Reliability scores:
> .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable)
Here reliability Cronbach’s Alpha value is 0.804 which is showing good reliability and fulfilling the requirement of Sacran2005, Bunch& Bunch2007 and Nulley1978.

CORRELATION:

|Descriptive Statistics |
| |Mean |Std. Deviation |N |
|Staffing |3.2884 |.59250 |43 |
|JD |3.1298 |.50332 |43 |
|TD |3.1447 |.69496 |43 |
|PA |3.5174 |1.48719 |43 |
|Compensation |3.5233 |.83062 |43 |
|CP |3.1725 |.68245 |43 |
|HS |3.4070 |.79208 |43 |
|OP |3.6047 |.58849 |43 |
|OSF |3.5664 |.48279 |43 |
|HROC |3.6783 |.49521 |43 |
|LRE |3.1370 |.52779 |43 |
|IC |3.6367 |.66597 |43 |

INTERPRETATION:
Descriptive Statistics table shows all the variables with their mean, standard deviations and sample sizes too.
Here sample size for all the variables is 43.
Means and standard deviations for different variables is almost same except Performance Appraisal which can be seen from the table.

[pic]

INTERPRETATION:

“H1: r = 0” or

H1: “There is no correlation between variables”

• Correlation between staffing and J.D is 0.092 > 0.05 which means our hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between staffing and J.D.

• Correlation between staffing and T.D is 0.22 > 0.05 which means our hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between staffing and T.D.

• Correlation between staffing and T.D is 0.436> 0.05 which means our hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between staffing and P.A.

• Correlation between staffing and T.D is 0.973> 0.05 which means our hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant relationship between staffing and compensation.

• MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION:

OP v/s IV

|Model Summary |
|Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the |
| | | | |Estimate |
|1 |.706a |.499 |.398 |.45647 |
|a. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:

Adjusted R sq: 0.25 or less “unpredictable”, greater than 0.25 or less than 0.5 “predictable”, greater than 0.5, “good fit”, greater than 0.6 is “best fit”.

The model summary shows the adjusted R sq is 0.36 which is greater than 0.25.It means the data is predictable and the relation between variables are not week.

|ANOVAa |
|Model |
|b. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:
Hₒ: Model is not appropriate
Ha: Model is appropriate
The sig value is 0.001 which is less than alpha i.e. 0.05.So we will reject the Hₒ and accept the Ha. It means that the model is appropriate.

| |
|Coefficientsa |
|Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. |
| | |Coefficients | | |
| |

Interpretation:

Hₒ: alpha has no impact
Ha: alpha = 0
The sig value of alpha is 0.07 which is greater than alpha so we will accept Hₒ. It means that alpha has no impact.
The beta value of dependent variable i.e. Organizational Performance is 1.335 which means that whether we increase the other independent variable or not our OP would be 1.335.
On the other hand if we see beta of other variable like staffing. It will tell us that if we increase our staffing with 0.432 our OP will increase by 0.432.
If we will increase the Job/Work design by 0.196 it will decrease OP by 0.196.
Increase in Training and development will decrease OP by 0.14.
Increase in Performance Appraisal will increase OP by 0.144
Increase in Compensation with 0.181, will increase the OP by 0.181
0.155 increases in Career Planning will increase the OP by 0.155.In health and safety if we increase it by 0.079 the OP will increase by 0.079.

OSF v/s IV

|Model Summary |
|Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the |
| | | | |Estimate |
|1 |.886a |.784 |.741 |.24553 |
|a. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:

Adjusted R sq: 0.25 or less “unpredictable”, greater than 0.25 or less than 0.5 “predictable”, greater than 0.5, “good fit”, greater than 0.6 is “best fit”.

The model summary shows the adjusted R sq is 0.741 which is greater than 0.6.It means the data is predictable and the relation is best fit.

|ANOVAa |
|Model |
|b. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:
Hₒ: Model is not appropriate
Ha: Model is appropriate
The sig value is 0.000 which is less than alpha i.e. 0.05.So we will reject the Hₒ and accept the Ha. It means that the model is appropriate.

|Coefficientsa |
|Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. |
| | |Coefficients | | |
| |

Interpretation:

Hₒ: alpha has no impact
Ha: alpha = 0
The sig value of alpha is 0.78 which is greater than alpha so we will accept Hₒ. It means that alpha has no impact.
The beta value of dependent variable i.e. Organizational Success Factor is -0.108 which means that whether we increase the other independent variable or not OSF would be -0.108.
On the other hand if we see beta of other variable like staffing. It will tell us that if we increase our staffing with 0.412 our OSF will increase by 0.412.
If we will increase the Job/Work design by 0.249 it will increase OSF by 0.249.
Increase in Training and development will increase OSF by 0.321
Increase in Performance Appraisal will decrease OSF by 0.057
Increase in Compensation with 0.332, will increase the OSF by 0.332
0.097 increases in Career Planning will decrease the OSF by 0.097.In health and safety if we increase it by 0.038 the OSF will decrease by 0.038.

HROC v/s IV

|Model Summary |
|Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the |
| | | | |Estimate |
|1 |.543a |.294 |.153 |.45567 |
|a. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:

Adjusted R sq: 0.25 or less “unpredictable”, greater than 0.25 or less than 0.5 “predictable”, greater than 0.5, “good fit”, greater than 0.6 is “best fit”.

The model summary shows the adjusted R sq is 0.153 which is less than 0.25.It means the data is unpredictable.

|ANOVAa |
|Model |
|b. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:
Hₒ : Model is not appropriate
Ha: Model is appropriate
The sig value is 0.071 which is greater than alpha i.e. 0.05.So we will accept the Hₒ and reject the Ha. It means that the model is not appropriate.
| |
|Coefficientsa |
|Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. |
| | |Coefficients | | |
| |

Interpretation:

Hₒ: alpha has no impact
Ha: alpha = 0
The sig value of alpha is 0.038 which is less than alpha so we will reject Hₒ. It means that alpha has impact.
The beta value of dependent variable i.e. HRM OUTCOMES is 1.539 which means that whether we increase the other independent variable or not HROC would be 1.539
On the other hand if we see beta of other variable like Staffing. It will tell us that if we increase our staffing with 0.156 our OSF will increase by 0.156
If we will increase the Job/Work design by 0.136 it will increase OSF by 0.136
Increase in Training and development will increase HROC by 0.280
Increase in Performance Appraisal will decrease HROC by 0.108
Increase in Compensation with 0.213, will increase the HROC by 0.213
0.009 increase in Career Planning will increase the HROC by 0.009.In health and safety if we increase it by 0.023 the HROC will decrease by 0.023.

LRE v/s IV

|Model Summary |
|Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the |
| | | | |Estimate |
|1 |.366a |.134 |-.039 |.53794 |
|a. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:

Adjusted R sq: 0.25 or less “unpredictable”, greater than 0.25 or less than 0.5 “predictable”, greater than 0.5, “good fit”, greater than 0.6 is “best fit”.

The model summary shows the adjusted R sq is -.039 which is less than 0.25.It means the data is unpredictable.

|ANOVAa |
|Model |
|b. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:
Hₒ : Model is not appropriate
Ha: Model is appropriate
The sig value is 0.776 which is greater than alpha i.e. 0.05.So we will accept the Hₒ and reject the Ha. It means that the model is not appropriate.

|Coefficientsa |
|Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. |
| | |Coefficients | | |
| |

Hₒ: alpha has no impact
Ha: alpha = 0
The sig value of alpha is 0.005 which is less than alpha so we will reject Hₒ. It means that alpha has impact.
The beta value of dependent variable i.e. LEGAL AND REGULATORY is 2.508 which means that whether we increase the other independent variable or not LRE would be 2.508.
On the other hand if we see beta of other variable like Staffing. It will tell us that if we increase our staffing with 0.070 our LRE will decrease by 0.070.
If we will increase the Job/Work design by 0.029 it will decrease LRE by 0.029
Increase in Training and development will decrease LRE by 0.259.
Increase in Performance Appraisal will increase LRE by 0.072.
Increase in Compensation with 0.077, will increase the LRE by 0.077.
0.267 increase in Career Planning will increase the LRE by 0.267.In health and safety if we increase it by 0.116 the LRE will decrease by 0.116.

IC v/s IV

|Model Summary |
|Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the |
| | | | |Estimate |
|1 |.748a |.559 |.471 |.48433 |
|a. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:

Adjusted R sq: 0.25 or less “unpredictable”, greater than 0.25 or less than 0.5 “predictable”, greater than 0.5, “good fit”, greater than 0.6 is “best fit”.

The model summary shows the adjusted R sq is 0.471 which is greater than 0.25 and less than 0.5 .It means the data is predictable.

|ANOVAa |
|Model |
|b. Predictors: (Constant), HS, Staffing, Compensation, PA, JD, CP, TD |

Interpretation:
Hₒ : Model is not appropriate
Ha: Model is appropriate
The sig value is 0.000 which is less than alpha i.e. 0.05.So we will reject the Hₒ and accept the Ha. It means that the model is appropriate.

|Coefficientsa |
|Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. |
| | |Coefficients | | |
| |

Hₒ: alpha has no impact
Ha: alpha = 0
The sig value of alpha is 0.798 which is greater than alpha so we will accept Hₒ. It means that alpha has no impact.
The beta value of dependent variable i.e. INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS is -0.196 which means that whether we increase the other independent variable or not IC would be -0.196.
On the other hand if we see beta of other variable like Staffing. It will tell us that if we increase our staffing with 0.587 our IC will increase by 0.587.
If we will increase the Job/Work design by 0.194 it will decrease IC by 0.194.
Increase in Training and development will increase IC by 0.088.
Increase in Performance Appraisal will increase IC by 0.015.
Increase in Compensation with 0.213, will increase the IC by 0.387.
0.032 increase in Career Planning will decrease the IC by 0.032.In health and safety if we increase it by 0.270 the IC will increase by 0.270.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Rm Sleep Behavior Disorder Research Paper

... While some sleep disorders can be quite dangerous and hazardous to the health of a person, there are not many as dangerous as REM sleep behavior disorder. It can lead to very dangerous situations with the person and/or the person you sleep with. If left undiagnosed and untreated, it could lead to the eventual death of a person or their loved one. That is why it is important to understand the symptoms, causes, and treatments of REM sleep behavior disorder, so that personal harm can be prevented at all costs. The DSM V for REM sleep behavior disorder is numerous, but very specific on what qualifies for the disorder. For instance, a person with REM sleep behavior disorder can be seen talking and/or moving during the REM sleep period. The person can wake up from these instances and is not dazed or confused. The person will wake up and be alert without being tired. The person can be seen moving as their muscles will not turn off like normally done in REM Sleep. These instances can cause problems in social, work, or other aspects of life. The disorder can be caused by a history of REM sleep behavior disorder or a degenerative disease to the nervous system, such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer’s, although, no known link has been found from REM sleep behavior disorder to drug abuse or other medical conditions. The case study is an interesting one. The patient, James, was sent to a sleep disorder clinic after a few separate instances. First, James had been dreaming that he was being...

Words: 992 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Good to Know

...growth cycle Allen N. Berger a a,b,* , Gregory F. Udell c Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, USA b Wharton Financial Institutions Center, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA c Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Abstract This article examines the economics of ®nancing small business in private equity and debt markets. Firms are viewed through a ®nancial growth cycle paradigm in which different capital structures are optimal at di€erent points in the cycle. We show the sources of small business ®nance, and how capital structure varies with ®rm size and age. The interconnectedness of small ®rm ®nance is discussed along with the impact of the macroeconomic environment. We also analyze a number of research and policy issues, review the literature, and suggest topics for future research. Ó 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. JEL classi®cation: G21; G28; G34; E58; L89 Keywords: Venture capital; Small business lending; Bank; Mergers 1. Introduction The role of the entrepreneurial enterprise as an engine of economic growth has garnered considerable public attention in the 1990s. Much of this focus * Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 202 452 2903; fax: 1 202 452 5295; e-mail: aberger@frb.gov. 0378-4266/98/$19.00 Ó 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII S 0 3 7 8 - 4 2 6 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 3 8 - 7 614 A. N. Berger, G. F. Udell / Journal of Banking...

Words: 30009 - Pages: 121

Premium Essay

Valuing Ipos

...of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7168, USA Received 3 June 1997; received in revised form 18 August 1998 Abstract The use of accounting information in conjunction with comparable "rm multiples is widely recommended for valuing initial public o!erings (IPOs). We "nd that the price}earnings (P/E), market-to-book, and price-to-sales multiples of comparable "rms have only modest predictive ability without further adjustments. This is largely due to the wide variation of these ratios for young "rms within an industry. P/E multiples using forecasted earnings result in much more accurate valuations than multiples using trailing 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. earnings. JEL classixcation: G24 Keywords: Initial public o!erings; Valuation; Comparable "rms * Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-352-846-2837; fax: #1-352-392-0301. E-mail addresses: kimc@nms.kyunghee.ac.kr (M. Kim), jritter@dale.cba.u#.edu (J.R. Ritter) This paper is based on Moonchul Kim's University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation. We would like to thank seminar participants at Boston, Emory, Georgetown, Humboldt (Berlin), and Vanderbilt Universities, the Universities of Miami and Texas, the Stockholm School of Economics, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the New York Federal Reserve, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 1996 Harvard Financial Decisions and Control Workshop, the 1997 Tuck Underwriting Conference, and Alan Eberhart, Chris Barry, Harry DeAngelo, Linda DeAngelo, Craig Dunbar, John...

Words: 13092 - Pages: 53

Premium Essay

What

...of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7168, USA Received 3 June 1997; received in revised form 18 August 1998 Abstract The use of accounting information in conjunction with comparable "rm multiples is widely recommended for valuing initial public o!erings (IPOs). We "nd that the price}earnings (P/E), market-to-book, and price-to-sales multiples of comparable "rms have only modest predictive ability without further adjustments. This is largely due to the wide variation of these ratios for young "rms within an industry. P/E multiples using forecasted earnings result in much more accurate valuations than multiples using trailing 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved. earnings. JEL classixcation: G24 Keywords: Initial public o!erings; Valuation; Comparable "rms * Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-352-846-2837; fax: #1-352-392-0301. E-mail addresses: kimc@nms.kyunghee.ac.kr (M. Kim), jritter@dale.cba.u#.edu (J.R. Ritter) This paper is based on Moonchul Kim's University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation. We would like to thank seminar participants at Boston, Emory, Georgetown, Humboldt (Berlin), and Vanderbilt Universities, the Universities of Miami and Texas, the Stockholm School of Economics, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the New York Federal Reserve, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the 1996 Harvard Financial Decisions and Control Workshop, the 1997 Tuck Underwriting Conference, and Alan Eberhart, Chris Barry, Harry DeAngelo, Linda DeAngelo, Craig Dunbar, John...

Words: 13092 - Pages: 53

Premium Essay

Bsa 310 Learning Consultant / Tutorialrank.Com

...Systems Paper (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 3 Discussion Question 1 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 3 Discussion Question 2 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 3 Individual Assignment Service Request SR-kf-013 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 4 Discussion Question 1 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 4 Discussion Question 2 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 4 Individual Assignment McBride Marketing Paper (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 5 Discussion Question 1 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 5 Discussion Question 2 (UOP Course) BSA 310 Week 5 Team Assignment Service Request SR-rm-012 Paper and Presentation (UOP Course) ____________________________________________________ BSA 310 Week 2 Individual Assignments Critical Information Systems Paper (UOP Course) For more course tutorials visit www.tutorialrank.com Individual Assignment: Critical Information Systems Paper • Write a 3-5 page paper based on one of the following Virtual Organizations: o Smith Systems Consulting. Huffman Trucking. Kudler Fine Foods. • For the selected Virtual Organization, describe an information system critical to the business processes of the organization. Include in your description how this information system has an effect on the organizational structure. ____________________________________________________ BSA 310 Week 3 Individual Assignment Service Request SR-kf-013 (UOP Course) For more course tutorials visit www.tutorialrank.com Individual Assignment: Service Request SR-kf-013 Paper •...

Words: 718 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Subcultures and Employment Modes Translating Hr Strategy Into Practice

...The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm Subcultures and employment modes: translating HR strategy into practice Jennifer Palthe Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA Subcultures and employment modes 287 Received 15 March 2002 Revised 15 September 2002 Accepted 9 December 2002 Ellen Ernst Kossek Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Keywords Human resource development, Employment, Human resource management, Culture Abstract Past research suggests that most culture change efforts proceed with limited attention to the pluralistic nature of contemporary organizations. We argue that the relationship between organization subcultures and the implementation of new HR strategies into HR practice has not been adequately explored because of the lack of a comprehensive framework for de®ning and integrating culture change and the strategic HR literature. We review the organization culture and strategic HR literature and present a heuristic that serves as a step toward exemplifying the role of changing employment modes and organizational subcultures in enabling or constraining the implementation of HR strategy. Adjusting to changing environmental demands has been an ongoing pursuit of organizations for centuries, but the task has become even more perplexing...

Words: 8877 - Pages: 36

Free Essay

Productivity Spillovers from Technology Transfer to Indian Manufacturing Firms

...Development Research (GIDR), Gota, Ahmedabad, India Abstract: The present paper employs techniques from stochastic production frontier and panel data literature to test a spillover hypothesis for large sized ®rms that `presence of foreign-owned ®rms and foreign technical capital stock in a sector leads to reduced dispersion in eciency in the sector and fall is higher for the ®rms that invest in R&D activities'. Dispersion being a relative concept, it may still fall if both the leading foreign ®rm and domestic ®rms show fall in technical eciency over the period and the fall for the leader is higher and vice versa. Given the focus of the study, where concern is for the learning by the domestic ®rms, the study tries to get around with the problem partially, by testing the hypothesis for those local ®rms that have shown productivity improvement over the period. Results suggest that foreign-owned ®rms are close to the frontier in 13 of the total 26 sectors studied. Spillovers result for these 13 sectors indicate that there exist negative spillovers from the presence of foreign ®rms in the sector, but available foreign technical capital stock has a positive impact. Interesting di€erences emerge when the sample is bifurcated into scienti®c and non-scienti®c subgroups. Results for the scienti®c subgroup indicate that the indirect gains or spillovers are not automatic consequence of foreign ®rm's presence, but they depend to a large extent on the e€orts of local ®rms to invest in...

Words: 14540 - Pages: 59

Free Essay

Control Charts

...Sci. Eng. 36 012006 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1757-899X/36/1/012006) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: 121.96.255.145 This content was downloaded on 06/08/2014 at 08:45 Please note that terms and conditions apply. 1st International Conference on Mechanical Engineering Research 2011 (ICMER2011) IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 36 (2012) 012006 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/36/1/012006 Productivity improvement using industrial engineering tools H.A. Salaam1, S. B. How, M. F. Faisae Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Pekan, Pahang Darul Makmur, 26600, Malaysia E-mail: hadisalaam@ump.edu.my Abstract. Minimizing the number of defects is important to any company since it influence their outputs and profits. The aim of this paper is to study the implementation of industrial engineering tools in a manufacturing recycle paper box company. This study starts with reading the standard operation procedures and analyzing the process flow to get the whole idea on how to manufacture paper box. At the same time, observations at the production line were made to identify problem occurs in the production line. By using check sheet, the defect data from each station were collected and have been analyzed using Pareto Chart. From the chart, it is found that glue workstation shows the highest number of defects. Based on observation at the glue workstation...

Words: 2893 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

Netflix‟S Busi

...London W1T 3JH, UK Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20 Building Innovation Networks: Issues of Strategy and Expertise Lisa Harris, Anne-Marie Coles & Keith Dickson Available online: 25 Aug 2010 To cite this article: Lisa Harris, Anne-Marie Coles & Keith Dickson (2000): Building Innovation Networks: Issues of Strategy and Expertise, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12:2, 229-241 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713698468 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management...

Words: 7969 - Pages: 32

Free Essay

Project Document

...SEN 943 Software Risk Management Final Project Research Paper Summer 2014 300 Points Research Paper Objective: To demonstrate the ability to analyze scholarly articles in the area of software RM related to CSLOs of the course. Task: Read, study and analyze 10 scholarly articles directly related to the field of risk management. The links to the 10 articles are provided on the course homepage. For each article provide: 1. A 300 or more word summary of the article (not a re-hash of the paper abstract or conclusion) 2. A 300 or more word analysis of the models, formulas, processes, or addition to the field of software RM developed by the article 3. A 300 or more word personal critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the article as related to the field of software RM Each article will have the following headings: Title Author Article Summary Article Analysis Article Critique *Place a page break between each article The research paper must have: 1. A title page 2. A table of contents 3. 10 articles, each separated by a page break 4. A Ranking/Comparative Essay The Ranking/Comparative Essay In 1200 or more words, rank the top 2 articles and the bottom 2 articles that comprise your 10 articles. Describe in a comparative manner why they rank the way they do and include any ways to improve the articles that rank at the bottom two. EMS Discussion Thread Feel free to ask questions about this assignment in the course discussion thread in the course...

Words: 714 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Lecture 1 - Intro to Module

...MGT3110 Business and Society MODULE HANDBOOK 2013-2014 Module Leader (London): Dr. Andrea Werner Module Tutor (Dubai): Mr. Kieran Ross Middlesex University Dubai Business School Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND MODULE SUMMARY.............................................................3 Module aims .................................................................................................................3 Contacts .......................................................................................................................3 Module Website on MyUniHub .....................................................................................3 Learning Outcomes ......................................................................................................4 Assessment Scheme ...................................................................................................4 Employability Skills.......................................................................................................4 Code of Conduct ..........................................................................................................5 2. LEARNING MATERIALS ............................................................................................6 3. TIMETABLE AND TEACHING PROGRAMME ...........................................................8 Lecture and Seminar Schedule.................................................................................... 8 Lectures...

Words: 6925 - Pages: 28

Premium Essay

Marketing

...our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,...

Words: 10306 - Pages: 42

Free Essay

Proposal Outline Pangkor Trip

...Trip in November 2008” 1.2 SUMMARY This summary is all about the proposal on the choosing the location for the upcoming annual company trip in November.Inside the proposal,The explanations/reasons for choice,activities and event that going and budget for the respective places (i.e Pangkor Island and Hangzhou) will be explained. INTRODUCTION During the last general meeting,the company’s management had agreed upon the suggestion to hold an annual company trip.However,there are two locations were proposed in that meeting.The places are Pangkor Island Beach Resort,Pangkor Island,Perak and Hangzhou,China. Before preparing the proposal,i did a research about both places,and also it’s background. Besides than that,I also checked the costs for both places,in order to arranging the budget allocation for the trip. RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE PLACES: PANGKOR ISLAND AND HANGZHOU HANGZHOU -Renowned for its beauty of the West Lake and also the historic places dated back to the Chinese emperors era.Located few kilometers from Shanghai,one of the most developing cities in China. -Besides than visiting Hangzhou,visitors could also go to nearest cities,such as Shanghai, and Suzhou. Activities can be done,and expected events at Hangzhou: -Sightseeing and boat tour along the West Lake,Tour Linying Temple,Peak Flying from Afar,Huagang and get a taste of famous Longjing tea (Dragon Well tea) - Appreciation and farewell dinner ceremony for the participant of the trip...

Words: 894 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Riordan Mnfg Outsourcing Paper

...Riordan Manufacturing Outsourcing Plan Introduction Riordan Manufacturing (RM) is an established global plastics producer, which employees 550 individuals and their projected annual earnings are $46 million. RM has production divided among three plants. RM’s mission is to focus on achieving and maintaining profit that ensures that the financial and human capital is available to sustain growth. In week three, team C established four potential outsourcing options. Of those four potentials, RM stands to gain the most potential from outsourcing customer relationship management (CRM). This could cover service, sales, and marketing. Services that will be provided include the call center support, field support management, e-Service, campaign management, sales forecasting, account management, and pipeline management. Outsourcing will assist with new government required reporting requirements. CRM will assist RM for future outsourcing projects such as switching over to compatible systems for finance and accounting. Situation Analysis RM is recognized for their innovation and providing customers with new products. An outsourcing plan pertaining to CRM has been established below. The success of the project will be measured by the performance measures; customer satisfaction, marketing, and employee retention. Outsourcing Plan Based on research by RM they have created a cost-effective recognition program that is aimed at motivating employees, increasing retention, and increase...

Words: 2424 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Riodran Manf Outsourcing

...Riordan Manufacturing Outsourcing Plan Introduction Riordan Manufacturing (RM) is an established global plastics producer, which employees 550 individuals and their projected annual earnings are $46 million. RM has production divided among three plants. RM’s mission is to focus on achieving and maintaining profit that ensures that the financial and human capital is available to sustain growth. In week three, team C established four potential outsourcing options. Of those four potentials, RM stands to gain the most potential from outsourcing customer relationship management (CRM). This could cover service, sales, and marketing. Services that will be provided include the call center support, field support management, e-Service, campaign management, sales forecasting, account management, and pipeline management. Outsourcing will assist with new government required reporting requirements. CRM will assist RM for future outsourcing projects such as switching over to compatible systems for finance and accounting. Situation Analysis RM is recognized for their innovation and providing customers with new products. An outsourcing plan pertaining to CRM has been established below. The success of the project will be measured by the performance measures; customer satisfaction, marketing, and employee retention. Outsourcing Plan Based on research by RM they have created a cost-effective recognition program that is aimed at motivating employees, increasing retention, and increase...

Words: 2424 - Pages: 10