A STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS VARIOUS SOFTWARE PRODUCTS OFFERED BY YAMEE CLUSTER

ABSTRACT This study On Study on Customer Satisfaction Level towards Various Products Offered by YAMEE CLUSTER, Chennai aims at the understanding customer satisfaction of the product and YAMEE CLUSTER services and analyze the customer coverage area of that product. Primary data were collected with the help of the structured questionnaire from the existing customers of this concern. The sample size considered for the study was 100 where YAMEE CLUSTER. The tools for the analysis include Frequency analysis, Data reduction analysis, Cross tabulation, Chi-square test, weighted average analysis. And dependent on reasonable price and product advantage and after sales services is concern price.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter No. Title Page No.

I 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 II 2.1 2.2 III 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 IV 4.1 4.3

Introduction Introduction Industry Profile Company Profile Review of Literature Main Theme of the Research Objectives Research Methodology Data Presentation & Analysis Frequency table Cross table Chi-square testing Anova testing Findings & Suggestions Findings Conclusion Bibliography Questionnaire

10 11 13 21 23 24 25 26 27 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

LIST OF TABLES Serial No.

3

Title

Page No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11

Frequency Table for service provider Frequency Table for company automated Frequency Table for manual process still exit after computerization Frequency Table for gaps for automated Frequency Table for process changes Frequency Table Frequency Table for have any alerts Frequency Table for data secured Frequency Table for reduced workforce Frequency Table for feature Is adequate Frequency Table for price is reasonable Frequency Table for time period Price is reasonable and feature is adequate and Chi- Square.

27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 38 39 41 45

Business nature and software user Cross Tabulation and Chi- 46 Square

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER1: 1.1 Introduction: Software product lines refer to engineering techniques for creating a portfolio of similar software systems from a shared set of software assets using a common means of production. Manufacturers have long used analogous engineering techniques to create a product line of similar products using
5

a common factory that assembles and configures parts designed to be reused across the varying products in the product line. For example, automotive manufacturers can now create tens of thousands of unique variations of one car model using a single pool of carefully architected parts and one factory specifically designed to configure and assemble those parts. The idea of manufacturing software from reusable parts has been around for decades, but success has been elusive. Recent advances in the software product line field have demonstrated that narrow and strategic application of these concepts can yield order of magnitude improvements in time-tomarket, quality, portfolio scalability and software engineering cost. The result is often a discontinuous jump in competitive business advantage, similar to that seen when manufacturers adopt mass production and mass customization paradigms. The characteristic that distinguishes software product lines from previous efforts is predictive versus opportunistic software reuse. Rather than put general software components into a library in hopes that opportunities for reuse will arise, software product lines only call for software artifacts to be created when reuse is predicted in one or more products in a well defined product line. Mass production - the ability to efficiently create many copies of the same product - represented a big advance in the manufacturing world, though creating many copies of a software product is trivial. On the other hand, mass customization - the ability to efficiently create many variations of a product - is a big advance in both manufacturing and software engineering. The key to mass customization is to capitalize on the commonality and to effectively manage the variation in a product line. The following sections in this chapter describe how to do this for software product lines. Software product management is the process of managing software that is built and implemented as a product, taking into account life-cycle considerations and generally with a wide audience. It is the discipline and business process which governs a product from its inception to the market or customer delivery and service in order to generate biggest possible value to the business. This is in contrast to software that is delivered in an ad-hoc manner, typically to a limited clientele, e.g. service.

Software products A software product is typically a single application or suite of applications built by a software company to be used by *many* customers, businesses or consumers. The mass-market notion differs from custom software built for the use of a single customer by consulting firms like IBM Global Services or Accenture. Examples of business software products include the Oracle 10g database by Oracle Corporation, SAP R/3 ERP software by SAP AG, QuickBooks by Intuit, etc. Examples of consumer software products include Microsoft Office by Microsoft, TurboTax by Intuit. Since the late 1990s, many software products have been offered as a service, so that the customers - businesses or end consumers - run the same application without installing the software on their computers. Examples include Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software by Salesforce.com, consumer shopping comparison software by Shopping.com, various web search tools offered by Google, Yahoo!, and the auction marketplace by eBay. Even though these applications are not packaged in media that can be touched and felt, they are software products nonetheless, and require the same product management rigor as packaged software do. In fact, they do require more rigor since the product manager must now be concerned with operational concerns such as service availability and third-party relations. The need for software product management To develop, sell and support a successful software product a business needs to understand its market, identify the opportunity, develop and market an appropriate piece of software. Hence the need for product management as a core business function in software companies [2]. Hardware companies may also have a need for software product management, because software is part of the delivery: for example when providing operating systems or software embedded in a device.

The role of software product manager The product manager leads and manages one or several products from the inception to the phaseout in order to maximize business value. He is working with marketing, sales, engineering, finance, quality, manufacturing and installation to make his products a business success. He has the business responsibility beyond the single project. He determines what to make and how to make it and is accountable for the business success within an entire portfolio. He approves roadmap and content and determines what and how to innovate. He is responsible for the entire value chain of a product following the life cycle and asks: What do we keep, what do we involve, and what do we stop? Here is a short list of topics how software product managers can deliver better results [1]:

Behave like an embedded CEO Drive your strategy and portfolio from market and customer value Be enthusiastic on your own product Have a profound understanding of your markets, customers and portfolio Measure your contribution on sales (top-line) and profits (bottom-line) Periodically check assumptions such as business cases Take risks, and manage them Foster teamwork based on lean processes Insist on discipline and keeping commitments Be professional in communication, appearance, behaviors

Content of software product management Software product management covers all steps from inception of a product to its end of life. It consists of five major phases in the product life-cycle, namely:

Strategy Concept Market Entry Development

8

Evolution

Within these five phases it deals with the following aspects of a software product within a software and/or hardware company:

Idea generation (e.g. on whiteboards) for a new software product, or for the next version of an existing product. Collection and prioritization (see below) of business and/or market requirements from prospects, customers of earlier versions of the product, domain experts, technology visionaries, market experts, products / solutions from competing vendors, etc.

Crafting of Marketing Requirements Documents, or MRDs, which synthesize the requirements / needs of various stakeholders as outlined above. Using the MRD as a basis, come up with a product requirements document or PRD, as an input to the engineering team to build out the product. A PRD is generally not the same as a functional specification since it specifies what a product should do, but not how the product should do it. Frequently, a PRD can be a collection of UML Use Cases, UML Activity Diagrams, HTML mockups, etc. It can have other details such as the software development environment, and the software deployment environment (client-server, web, etc.).

Deliver the PRD to the software engineering team, and manage conflicts between the business units, the sales teams, and the engineering teams, as it applies to the software products to be built out.

Once the software development gets into build / release cycle, conducts acceptance tests. Deal with the delivery of the product. This can vary from demonstrating the product to customers using web-based conferencing tools, to building product demonstrations, to other placement and promotion tactics. Frequently, in Silicon Valley, these two aspects of marketing, and sometimes also pricing, are dealt with by Product Marketing Managers, as opposed to Product Managers.

Once the product is deployed at a customer site, solicit customer feedback, report software bugs, and pass these on back to engineering for subsequent build / release cycles, as the product stabilizes, and then matures.
9

Perform competitive analysis as to how this product is behaving in the market, vis-a-vis other products catering to the same / similar customer segments. In the software space, this might require the product manager to take the opinion of analysts, who can come from name brand market research firms like IDC, Forrester Research, and Gartner Group.

Solicit more features and benefits from the users of the software product, users of competitive products, and from analysts and craft / synthesize these requirements for subsequent product build / release cycles, and pass them on to the software engineering team.

Prioritization Main article: Requirement prioritization A key aspect of Product Management is the correct prioritization of enhancements. Here's a method that works well (borrowed and adapted from Joel Spolsky):

Identify the panel, i.e. whose opinion you are going to seek Make a list of all items Estimate the effort required (either in days or in money) - this needs to be very rough and approximate.

1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE Although Irelands indigenous software industry gained international prominence during the late 1990s, it has a history that extends back over three decades with a particular focus on product development and selling abroad. During the past decade Ireland has gained a reputation as a leading European hub for software development with the majority of our indigenous firms focusing on significant product development in market segments such as systems software and middleware; telecommunications software; e-learning and healthcare; and insurance and banking applications. Driven by the New Software Economy (NSE) and the strategies of major vendors the software economy is significantly evolving. With increasing focus on both the emerging markets both
10

sectorial and geographical, new alliances and partnerships are being formed to access these skills and markets. Irelands Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation (2006-2013) states that Ireland by 2013 will be internationally renowned for the excellence of its research, and will be to the forefront in generating and using new knowledge for economic and social progress, within an innovation driven culture. By building critical mass to affect these changes this will ensure that Ireland by 2013 will become a best-connected New Software Economy. Skilled and Motivated Workforce

The indigenous software sector employs over 8,000 people in 400 companies. Annual export sales for the indigenous software sector account for about 1 billion representing 5% of the sector in revenue terms. Total ICT sector employment is now at 70,000 and accounts for 20 billion in revenue terms Key external markets are the UK(36% share) and the US(33% share) Ireland has the youngest population in Europe-35% of people are under the age of 25 years, with the median age currently 33 Ireland has the highest proportion of science and engineering graduates within the OECD Seven of Fortune Magazines top-ten leading ICT companies have a substantial base in Ireland.

Innovation, Research and Development

The technology sector accounts for over half of total business expenditures on R&D. The Industrial Development Agency Ireland invested 470 million in industry R&D projects in 2006. The Government allocated 8.2 billion to scientific research in 2006.

11

Science Foundation Ireland was established in 2003 to fund centers for specific areas of research in engineering, technology and science. Ireland ranks second in Europe in the Wall street Journal Index of Economic Freedom.

Low Corporation Tax Rate and a Transparent Tax System

At 12.5%, Ireland has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the world. Low personal tax rates and freedom of movement continue to attract non- national workers to Ireland. A high ratio of workers to dependents enables Ireland to fund its social services without overburdening the taxpayer.

Innovative capacity

Ireland ranks highest in terms of global innovation capability in an evaluation of 26 OECD countries.

1.3COMPANY PROFILE

1.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE: This feasibility study commissioned by the National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan (AIST) and supported by the Sustainable Consumption Unit (UNEP) provided an overview of approaches used in different disciplines for evaluating consumer behavior. The study analyzed the applicability of existing research concepts, theories, and tools for
12

evaluating consumer satisfaction with product-service systems (PSS). It included discussion over their strengths/weaknesses. This paper presents a short overview of the study. BACKGROUND It has been recognized that eco-efficiency improvements at production and product design level can be significantly reduced or totally negated by rebound effect from increased consumption levels. In line with this problem factor 10 to 20 material and energy efficiency improvements have been suggested (Factor 10 Club 1994; Schmidt-Bleak 1996; Bolund, Johansson et al. 1998; Ryan 1998). The improvements, however, if not carefully done, may still lead to rebound effects through changes in resource prices. As a potential solution to the factor 10/20 vision system level improvements have tube made, contrary redesigning individual products or processes (Watering and Opschoor 1992; Vergragt and Jansen 1993; von Weizscker, Lovins et al. 1997; Ryan1998; Manzini 1999; Brezet, Bijma et al. 2001; Ehrenfeld and Brezet 2001).The product service system (PSS) concept has been suggested as a way to contribute to this system level improvement (Goedkoop, van Halen et al. 1999; Mont 2000).Here the environmental impacts of products and associated services should be Addressed already at the product and service design stage. Special focus should be given On the use phase by providing alternative system solutions to owning products. A number of examples in B2B area exist that confirm the potential of PSS for reducing life cycle environmental impact. It is, however, increasingly evident that business examples are difficult to directly apply to the private consumer market. Private consumers, contrary to businesses, prefer product ownership to service substitutes (Schrader 1996; Littig 1998). Even if accepted, the environmental impacts of services products offers depend to a large extent on consumer behaviour.To address this problem; either behavioral or service system design changes are needed. Changing human behavior and existing lifestyles contributes to the vision of sustainable development, but at the same it is extremely difficult and time-consuming process. Besides the information processing perspective, marketing analyses consumer behavior by employing a psychologically grounded concept of attitudes (Balderjahn1988; Ronis, Yates et al. 1989; Lazar and Cosse 1998). It is consumer attitudes that are usually named as the major factor
13

in shaping consumer behavior and a wealth of studies is available on the topic of how attitudes can predict behavior. von Weizscker, Lovins et al. 1997; Ryan1998; Manzini 1999; Brezet, Bijma et al. 2001; Ehrenfeld and Brezet 2001).The product service system (PSS) concept has been suggested as a way to contribute to this system level improvement (Goedkoop, van Halen et al. 1999; Mont 2000).Here the environmental impacts of products and associated services should be addressed already at the product and service design stage. Special focus should be given

14

CHAPTER2 MAIN THEME OF RESEARCH

15

2.1 Customer Satisfaction towards the various products offered by YAMEE CLUSTER in Chennai City OBJECTIVES: To identify the demographic of the Customers profile.

To find out the satisfaction level among the customers towards Products of YAMEE CLUSTER.

To identify the customer opinion towards after sales service offered to them. To identify the competitive advantage of YAMEE CLUSTER over its competitors. To identify the satisfaction level among the customers towards various customer Service offered to them.

16

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY: The study of highlights of the performance of the YAMEE CLUSTER product in Chennai. The common problem faced by the customer and what are the problems arises from software product level Were also highlighted of the study .it also provides certain remedial measures to eradicate he problems and to improve the performance CLUSTER product. This study will help the organization to understand the customer perception about their product. From this study the organization can develop effective policies in order to retain their customers. and sales method of the YAMEE

17

NEED OF THE STUDY Customer is one for whom you satisfy a want or need in return for some of payment. The payment may be money or may be time, or may be goodwill but there is some form of payment. Satisfaction is the level of person felt state by comparing products perceived in relation to the persons expectation. Satisfaction level is function of difference between the perceived performance and expectations. If the performance falls short of expectation , the customer is not satisfied if the performance matches the expectation, the customer is highly satisfied.

18

2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: MEANING: Research also starts with question or problem .its purpose is to find answer to question the applicants of scientific method observation. RESEARCH DESIGN: A frame work or blueprint for conducing for the marketing research project it details of the procedures necessary for attaining the information needed to structure and/or solving Marketing research problem. DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH: Descriptive research a type of conclusive research that has as its major objective. The description of something usually mart characteristics or function. METHOD OF DALLECTION: PRIMARY DATA: Primary data is newly collecting the data for our purpose. SECONDARY DATA: Secondary data is already exits but make some interpretation of the exit data for our purpose. SAMPLING SIZE: Sample size number of the elements to be included of the study .determining the sample size is complex and involves several qualitative and quantitative considerations. through it pursuit of the track with the help of the study and

19

STATISTICAL TOOLS USED:

Chi-square test ANOVAs test Karl Pearson Correlation

ANALYSIS USING KARL PEARSONS CORRELATION: Correlation analysis is the statistical tool used to measure the degree to which two variables are linearly related to each other. Correlation measures the degree of association between two variables. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between two variables measured on at least an interval scale. It is denoted by the symbol r.

ANALYSIS USING KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST: It is also called as H-Test. This test is depends on the ranks of the sample observation. So it is also called as RANK-SUM TEST. Kruskal wallis test employed more than two populations. It is denoted by the symbol Z. Z= 12 R1^ 2 R 2^ 2 R3^ 2 R 4^ 2 + + + 3( N + 1) n(n + 1) N1 N2 N3 N4

CHI- SQUARE TEST I (2) A chi-squared test, also referred to as chi-square test or 2 test, is any statistical hypothesis test in which the sampling distribution of the test statistic is a chi-squared distribution when the null hypothesis is true, or any in which this is asymptotically true, meaning that the sampling distribution (if the null hypothesis is true) can be made to approximate a chi- squared distribution as closely as desired by making the sample size large enough. The 2 test was first used by Karl Pearson in the year 1980. The quantity 2 describes the magnitude of the discrepancy between theory and observation. It is calculated using:
20

 = [( Where,

]with (n - 1) degrees of freedom. to the expected frequencies.

refers to the observed frequency &

was used as a test of independence and goodness of fit. WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD In case of data involving ranking or different options, the weighted ranking method has been used. Using this method the net score for attribute calculated and analysis can be done on basis of net score is percentage method. Weighted average for each factor is: Weighted average for each score Sum of total weights PERCENTAGES Percentages refer to a special kind of ratio. Percentages are used in making comparison between two or more series of data. Percentages are used to describe relationships, it is expressed as. Percentage = (no of employees/total no of employees) 100 CHARTS: Charts are graphic displays of data for easy understanding of relative positions that is not always possible with descriptive words or numbers. Types of charts commonly used in business data presentation are: Bar and pie.

BAR CHARTS: The bar chart is commonly used for presentation of qualitative data. The data can be continuous or discrete data, which are plotted against discrete data intervals. The vertical bar diagram, also called bar chart where the length or height of bars represent the numerical value of the event or measurement. Width or gap between the bars is of no significance to the bar chart data, but they are uniform in a diagram.
21

TABLE: 1 Table shown as company Service provider to any major industry:

Service provider to any major industry Providing Not providing Total Frequency 122 78 200 Percent 61.0 39.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 61% of people accepted this, 39% does not accept so these statement giving information for most of the industries service provider for any major industries.

TABLE: 2 Table shown as company computerized/automated your org:

22

Organization automated Yes no Total Frequency 194 6 200 Percent 97.0 3.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 97% of people all the process using only automated system but only, 3% of people does not using automated only using manual process.

TABLE: 3 Table shown as methods do you use to maintain your data:

23

S.NO 1 2 3

PARTICULARS Book entry Fully automated Semi automated TOTAL

NO OF RESPONDENTS 50 100 50 200

PERCENTAGE 25 50 25 100

INTERPRETATION: From the above table it is interpreted that 50% of the respondents used fully automated system to maintain the data.

TABLE: 4 Table shown as enhanced your business processes year on year: NO OF RESPONDENTS
24

S.NO

PARTICULARS

PERCENTAGE

1 2 3

Agree Neutral disagree TOTAL

40 110 50 200

20 55 25 100

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 55% of the respondents stays neutral about business processes year on year

TABLE: 5

Table shown as productivity level have you achieved S.NO PARTICULARS NO OF RESPONDENTS
25

PERCENTAGE

1 2 3

High Moderate Low TOTAL

80 60 60 200

40 30 30 100

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 40% respondents says their productivity us high.

TABLE: 6 Table shown fully automated: S.NO 1 2 PARTICULARS Front Office Sales / Marketing NO OF RESPONDENTS 120 20
26

PERCENTAGE 60 10

Purchase & Inventory accounting TOTAL

20 40 200

10 20 100

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 60% of the respondents feels their front office is fully automated.

TABLE: 7 Table shown as kind of MIS:

Get Any Alerts Online Off line Total

Frequency 20 180 200

27

Percent 10.0 90.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 10% of people wants online MIS, 90% does not wants online MIS.

TABLE: 8 Table shown as alerts from system: NO OF RESPONDENTS 120 60 20 200

S.NO 1 2 3

PARTICULARS Regularly Frequently Rarely TOTAL

PERCENTAGE 60 30 10 100

28

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 60% of people got regularly alert from the system.

TABLE: 9 Table shown as level of data secured: S.NO 1 2 3 PARTICULARS Regularly Frequently Rarely TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 100 40 60 200 PERCENTAGE 50 20 30 100

29

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 50% of the respondents says that their data is regularly secured.

TABLE: 10 Table shown as reduced your workforce after automation: S.NO 1 2 3 4 PARTICULARS <10 10-20 20-30 > 30 TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 40 20 60 80 200 PERCENTAGE 20 10 30 40 100

30

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 40% of people accepted that the work force is reduced after automation.

TABLE: 11 Table shown as budget spent: S.NO 1 2 3 4 PARTICULARS < 100000 1L 2L 2L 3L 3L 4L TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 40 20 120 20 200 PERCENTAGE 20 10 60 10 100

31

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 60 % of people accepted that they spent 2L -3L as their budget.

TABLE: 12 Table shown as recommend these products: S.NO 1 2 3 PARTICULARS Management Friends Others TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 80 80 40 200 PERCENTAGE 40 40 20 100

32

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 40% of the respondents said that they will recommend this system to their friends.

TABLE: 13 Table shown as pricing strategy of the product: S.NO 1 2 3 PARTICULARS Expensive Affordable Cheap TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 40 120 40 200
33

PERCENTAGE 20 60 20 100

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 60% of people feels that the pricing strategy of the product is affordable.

TABLE: 14 Table shown as information by the sales people: S.NO 1 2 PARTICULARS Sufficient Insufficient TOTAL NO OF RESPONDENTS 120 80 200 PERCENTAGE 60 40 100

34

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 60% of the respondents feels that information from the sales people is sufficient.

TABLE: 15 Table shown as company Offer provided:

35

Offer provided Strongly agree agree nature Disagree Missing Total Total System

Frequency 106 76 8 6 198 2 200

Percent 53.0 38.0 4.0 3.0 98.0 2.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 54.1% of people strongly agree respondence, 38.8% company people agree, 4.1% people respondence is nature, 3.1% of people despondence is disagree. TABLE: 16 Table shown as company Price is reasonable:

36

Price is reasonable Strongly agree agree nature Disagree Total

Frequency 36 84 68 12 200

Percent 18.0 42.0 34.0 6.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 18% of people strongly agree respondence, 42 % company people agree, 34% people respondence is nature, 6% of people respondence is disagree

TABLE: 17 Table shown as company maintain stipulated time period:

37

Stipulated time period Strongly agree agree nature Disagree Strongly disagree Missing Total Total System

Frequency 66 74 46 10 196 4 200

Percent 33.0 37.0 23.0 5.0 98.0 2.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 33.7% of people strongly agree respondence, 37.8% company people agree, 23.5% people respondence is nature, 5.1% of people respondence is disagree respondence. TABLE: 18 Table shown as Software User friendly:

38

Strongly agree agree nature Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 76 64 50 8 2 200

Percent 38.0 32.0 25.0 4.0 1.0 100.0

Inference: From above the table it is inferred that 38% of people strongly agree respondence, 32% company people agree, 25% people respondence is nature, 4% of people respondence is disagree and 1%respondence strongly disagree. ANALYSIS USING KARL PEARSONS CORRELATION Correlation analysis is the statistical tool used to measure the degree to which two variables are linearly related to each other. Correlation measures the degree of association between two variables. Null hypothesis (Ho): There is positive relationship between satisfaction with the offers provided by the company and after sale service of the company.
39

Alternate hypothesis (H1): There is negative relationship between satisfaction with the offers provided by the company and after sale service of the company.
Correlations Satisfied with Offers Satisfied with Offers Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N after sale Service Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 200 .446
**

after sale Service .446** .000 200 1 200

.000 200

= 0.446 INFERENCE: Since r is positive, there is positive relationship between satisfaction with the offers provided by the company and after sale service of the company.

CHI- SQUARE TEST I (2) Chi-square is the sum of the squared difference between observed (o) and the expected (e) data (or the deviation, d), divided by the expected data in all possible categories. Null hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference between automation of business process and enhancement of automation process. Alternate hypothesis (H1):
40

There is significant difference between automation of business process and enhancement of automation process. Expected frequency = Row Total * Column Total Grand Total
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N automated your organization data * enhanced your business processes 200 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 200 Total Percent 100.0%

41

automated your organization data * enhanced your business processes Cross tabulation enhanced your business processes agree automated your organization data yes Count % within automated your organization data % within enhanced your business processes % of Total no Count % within automated your organization data % within enhanced your business processes % of Total Total Count % within automated your organization data % within enhanced your business processes % of Total 99 61.1% 100.0% 49.5% 0 .0% .0% .0% 99 49.5% 100.0% 49.5% neutral 43 26.5% 100.0% 21.5% 0 .0% .0% .0% 43 21.5% 100.0% 21.5% disagree 20 12.3% 34.5% 10.0% 38 100.0% 65.5% 19.0% 58 29.0% 100.0% 29.0% Total 162 100.0% 81.0% 81.0% 38 100.0% 19.0% 19.0% 200 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases df
a

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 2 2 1 .000 .000 .000

14.857 19.764 16.227

200

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.17.

42

Calculated value = 14.8 Tabulated value = 3.841

Z = Z cal <Z tab

Z= 14.8<3.841 Hence, the null hypothesis [H0] is rejected. INFERENCE: Since the calculated value is greater than the tabulated value, we reject the null hypothesis and hence there is significant difference between automation of business process and enhancement of automation process.

43

CHI- SQUARE TEST I (2) Chi-square is the sum of the squared difference between observed (o) and the expected (e) data (or the deviation, d), divided by the expected data in all possible categories. Null hypothesis (Ho): There is no significant difference between pricing strategy of the product and information provided by the sakes people about the product. Alternate hypothesis (H1): There is significant difference between pricing strategy of the product and information provided by the sakes people about the product. Expected frequency = Row Total * Column Total Grand Total
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N pricing strategy of the product * information by the sales people 200 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 200 Total Percent 100.0%

44

pricing strategy of the product * information by the sales people Cross tabulation information by the sales people sufficient pricing strategy of the product expensive Count % within pricing strategy of the product % within information by the sales people % of Total affordable Count % within pricing strategy of the product % within information by the sales people % of Total cheap Count % within pricing strategy of the product % within information by the sales people % of Total Total Count % within pricing strategy of the product % within information by the sales people % of Total 26 100.0% 14.8% 13.0% 122 85.9% 69.3% 61.0% 28 87.5% 15.9% 14.0% 176 88.0% 100.0% 88.0% insufficient 0 .0% .0% .0% 20 14.1% 83.3% 10.0% 4 12.5% 16.7% 2.0% 24 12.0% 100.0% 12.0% Total 26 100.0% 13.0% 13.0% 142 100.0% 71.0% 71.0% 32 100.0% 16.0% 16.0% 200 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

45

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 4.137 7.212 1.753 200
a

df 2 2 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .126 .027 .185

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.12.

Calculated value = 4.137 Tabulated value = 3.841

Z = Z cal <Z tab

Z= 4.137<3.841 Hence, the null hypothesis [H0] is rejected. INFERENCE: Since the calculated value is less than the tabulated value, we accept the null hypothesis and hence there is no significant difference between pricing strategy of the product and information provided by the sakes people about the product.

ONE-WAY ANOVA CLASSIFICATION Null hypothesis (Ho): There is a significance difference between alert from the system and level of secured. Alternate hypothesis (H1):
46

There is no significance difference between alert from the system and level of secured. DESCRIPTIVES
95% Confidence Interval for Mean N highly secured secured not secured Total 97 36 67 200 Mean 1.82 3.00 2.03 2.11 Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound .750 .000 .797 .817 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 36.834 95.961 132.795 df 2 197 199 Mean Square 18.417 .487 F 37.809 Sig. .000 .076 .000 .097 .058 1.67 3.00 1.84 1.99 Upper Bound Minimum Maximum 1.98 3.00 2.22 2.22 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3

47

INFERENCE:
The calculated value of F is less than the tabulated value. Hence, we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that there significance difference between alert from the system and level of secured.

CHAPTER4
48

4.1 FINDINGS:
1. 61% of people accepted, 39% does not accept so these statement giving information for

most of the industries service provider for any major industries. 2. 97% of people all the process using only automated system but only, 3% of people does not using automated only using manual process. 3. 50% of the respondents used fully automated system to maintain the data.
4. 55% of the respondents stay neutral about business processes year on year.

5. 40% respondents says their productivity us high. 6. 60% of the respondents feel their front office is fully automated. 7. 10% of people wants online MIS, 90% does not wants online MIS. 8. 60% of people got regularly alert from the system. 9. 50% of the respondents say that their data is regularly secured. 10. 40% of people accepted that the work force is reduced after automation.
11. 60 % of people accepted that they spent 2L -3L as their budget.

12. 40% of the respondents said that they will recommend this system to their friends. 13. 60% of people feel that the pricing strategy of the product is affordable. 14. 60% of the respondents feel that information from the sales people is sufficient. 15. 54.1% of people strongly agree respondence, 38.8% company people agree, 4.1% people respondence is nature, 3.1% of people despondence is disagreeing.
16. 18% of people strongly agree respondence, 42 % company people agree, 34% people

respondence is nature, 6% of people respondence is disagreeing. 17. 33.7% of people strongly agree respondence, 37.8% company people agree, 23.5% people respondence is nature, 5.1% of people respondence is disagree respondence.
49

18. 38% of people strongly agree respondence, 32% company people agree, 25% people respondence is nature, 4% of people respondence is disagree and 1%respondence strongly disagree.

SUGGESTIONS: 1. Providing customer care service 24/7. 2. Company can update more technologies (Automation) in order to retain their customers. 3. Sales peoples are very important to the organization, company can select more efficient sales people in order to get in to the market place. 4. Organization can make their whole system into automated. 5. Companies can effective pricing strategy for their product.

50

4.2CONCLUSION: A highlights of the study on customer satisfaction towards the YAMEE CLUSTER technology (p) ltd product76% people like our product mostly the YAMEE CLUSTER product provide small scale industries,80%people accepted our product but some people provide more better sales and services Inferred that 37.8% of people strongly agree respondence , 37.4% company people agree,20.7% people respondence to satisfy after sales and services Find out analyzing table mostly 62% the YAMEE CLUSTER product provide small scale Industries17%Company have a problem of YAMEE CLUSTER product

51

CHAPTER5: 5.1BIBLOGRAPHY: BOOKS:

Balderjahn, I. (1988). "Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors of

Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns." Journal of Business Research 17(1): 51-56.

Mont, O. (2000). Product-Service Systems. Stockholm, Swedish EPA, AFR-report 288: 83. Marketing research (sixth edition)-naresh k.malkotra

5.2WEBSITE:

www.softreach.com www.softproduct .com www. Wikipedia.com www.YAMEE CLUSTER.co.in www.citesales.com

52

53

QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Company Name 2. Contact person 3. What are Locations you operate from 4. What is the size of your company A)Start-up B) Small, C)Medium, D)Large 5. What is your nature of business a) IT b) Non- IT c)NGO d)Others 6. What is your human resource strength a) Less than 10 b) 11-50 c) 50 100 d) More than 100 Level of Automation 7. Have you computerized / automated your organization data cs a)Yes b) No 8. Which of the following methods do you use to maintain your data a) Book entry b) Fully automated c) Semi automated 9. Has the automation has enhanced your business processes year on year? cs a)Agree b)Neutral c)Disagree

10. What productivity level have you achieved through the system implementation? a) High level b) Moderate level c) Low level 11. Which department is fully automated 1. Front Office 2. Sales / Marketing 3. Purchase & Inventory 4. Accounting
54

12. What kind of MIS do you require? a) Online b) Offline 13. When you get any alerts from system? a) Regularly b) Frequently c) Rarely 14. What is the level of data secured? a) Highly secured b) Secured c) Not secured 15. To what level have you reduced your workforce after automation? a) Less than 10 b) 10-20 c) 20-30 d) More than 30 Investment What is your budget spent for computerization so far? a) Less than 1,00,000 e) 2,00,000 -3,00,000 b) 1,00,000-2,00,000 d) 3,00,000-4,00,000

About YAMEE CLUSTER Products (New) 16. What is your opinion about solving your pain areas through YAMEE CLUSTER Product implementation at your place? 17. To whom will you recommend these products? a) Management b) Friends c) Others

55

18. How do find the pricing strategy of the product? cs a)Expensive b)Affordable c)Cheap 19. In your opinion what you say about the information by the sales people about our software products? a) Sufficient b) Insufficient 22) Existing customers satisfaction Variables Satisfied with Offers Provided Software delivered within stipulated period Satisfied with after sale Service Good attitude of the customer service representative Problems in using the software Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagre e Strongly Disagree

56