4.2 Measuring the association between basic study variable and researches constructs
This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between market orientation, new product performance, and organization performance and organization profitability. Therefore in this part of the study, a keen attention is given to measure the relationship among the leading constructs (market orientation, new product performance, and organization performance and organization profitability). So here the analysis result and discussion of basic variables are displayed below.
Table 4.3
Organization's sales efficiency and its relation with market direction related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation with organizational sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Market related question three | | Pearson Correlation | − .028 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .669 |
N | 227 |
Market related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .100 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .134 |
N | 227 |
Market related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .067 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .315 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.3 shows regression analysis result of organization's sales efficiency and company’s production capacity relative to its competitor’s production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input and quality of company's overall information handling and dissemination process. As it is displayed in the Table 4.3 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .028, .134 and − .067 which indicates that organization's sales efficiency is positively related with its product quality while it is negatively related with competitor’s production capacity and overall information handling and dissemination process.
Table 4.4
Organization's market share advantage and it's relation with market directed variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation with organizational market share advantage over competitors |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Market related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .024 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .716 |
N | 227 |
Market related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .025 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .713 |
N | 227 |
Market related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .111 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .097 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.4 displays regression analysis result of organization's market share advantage and company’s production capacity relative to its competitor’s production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input and quality of company's overall information handling and dissemination process. As it is indicated by Table 4.4 the coefficients of the correlation results are .024, .025 and .111 which implies that organization's market share advantage is positively related with its production capacity relative to its competitors production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input and quality overall information handling and dissemination process.
Table 4.5
Organization's relative profitability and its relationship with market directed variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation with organization's relative profitability |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Market related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .021 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .758 |
N | 227 |
Market related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .043 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .515 |
N | 227 |
Market related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .018 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .785 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.5 shows regression analysis result of organization's relative profitability and company’s production capacity relative to its competitor’s production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input and quality of company's overall information handling and dissemination process. As it is indicated by Table 4.5 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .021, − .043 and .018 which imply that organization's relative profitability is negatively related with production capacity relative to its competitors production capacity, product quality in-terms of production while it is positively related with its quality of overall information handling and dissemination process.
Table 4.6
Organization's overall status and its relationship with market related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation organization's overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Market related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .050 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .449 |
N | 227 |
Market related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .009 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .894 |
N | 227 |
Market related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .013 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .846 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.6 reveals regression analysis result of organization's overall status and company’s production capacity relative to its competitor’s production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input and quality of company's overall information handling and dissemination process. As it is shown by Table 4.6 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .050, − .009 and .013 which implies that organization's overall status is negatively related with its production capacity relative to its competitors production capacity, product quality in-terms of production input while it is positively related with its quality of overall information handling and dissemination process.
Table 4.7
Organization's sales efficiency and its relation with customer related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation with organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Customer related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .037 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .576 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .110 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .098 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .178** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .007 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .132* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .047 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.7 reveals regression analysis result of organization’s sales efficiency and its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly. As it is shown by Table 4.7 the coefficients of the correlation results are .037, .110, .178* and .132* which implies that organization's sales efficiency is positively related with its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly
Table 4.8
Organization's market share advantage and its relation with customer related variable (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Correlation organization's relative market share advange |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Customer related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .098 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .143 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .239** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .144* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .030 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .181** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .006 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.8 shows regression analysis result of organization's relative market share advantage and its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly. As it is shown by Table 4.8 the coefficients of the correlation results are .098, .239**, .144* and .181** which implies that organization's relative market share advantage is positively related with its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly.
Table 4.9
Organization profit efficiency and its relation with customer related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's profit efficiency |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Customer related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .122 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .066 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .039 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .555 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .003 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .961 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .092 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .169 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.9 reveals regression analysis result of organization's profit efficiency and its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly. As it is shown by Table 4.9 the coefficients of the correlation results are .122, .039, .003 and .092 which indicates that organization's profit efficiency is positive related with its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly.
Table 4.10
Organization's overall status and its relation with customer related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Customer related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .099 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .138 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .187** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .005 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .159* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .017 |
N | 227 |
Customer related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .072 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .277 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.10 shows regression analysis result of organization's overall status and its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers’ friendly. As it is shown by Table 4.10 the coefficients of the correlation results are .099, .187**, .159* and .072 which portrays that organization's overall status is positively related with its information handling ability about consumer's buying process, information regarding consumer's complaints its involvement on customer relationship management and its ability to threat customers friendly.
Table 4.11
Organization's sales efficiency and its relation with competition related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .058 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .383 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .148* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .026 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .234** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .030 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .650 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.11 shows regression analysis result of organization's sales efficiency and company's information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method. As it is shown by Table 4.11 the coefficients of the correlation results are .058, .148*, .234** and .030 which indicates that organization's sales efficiency is being positively influenced by company's information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method.
Table 4.12
Organization's market share advantage and its relationship with competition related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's market share advantage |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .020 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .767 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .162* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .014 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .201** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .002 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .096 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .151 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.12 shows regression analysis result of organization's market share advantage and its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors’ customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method. As it is shown by Table 4.12 the coefficients of the correlation results are .020, .162*, .201** and .096 which indicates that organization's market share advantage is positively related with its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method.
Table 4.13
Organization's profit efficiency and its relationship with competition related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's profit efficiency |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .068 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .310 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .045 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .502 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .168* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .011 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .037 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .580 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.13 reveals regression analysis result of organization's profit efficiency and its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitor’s customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method. As it is shown by Table 4.13 the coefficients of the correlation results are .068, .045, .168* and .037 which implies that organization's profit efficiency is positively related with its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method.
Table 4.14
Organization's overall status and its relationship with competition related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .046 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .491 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .047 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .485 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .029 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .664 |
N | 227 |
Competitor related question four | | Pearson Correlation | − .053 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .429 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.14 reveals regression analysis result of organizations overall status and its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer, competitors customer relationship management and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method. As it is shown by Table 4.14 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .046, − .047, .029 and − .053 which indicates that organization's overall status is negatively related with and its information about competitor's customer approaching and handling technique, customer's reason to shift in to competitor's offer and competitor's product offering and customer attraction method while it is positively related with competitors customer relationship management method.
Table 4.15
Organization's sales efficiency and its relationship with product benefit related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .024 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .720 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .067 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .315 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .125 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .059 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .103 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .122 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question five | | Pearson Correlation | − .045 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .499 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.15 shows regression analysis result of organization's sales efficiency and its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users. As it is shown by Table 4.15 the coefficients of the correlation results are .024, .067, .125, .103 and − .045 which implies that organization's sales efficiency is positively related with its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy and quality of distribution system while it is negatively related with product value for users.
Table 4.16
Organization's market share advantage and its relationship with product benefit related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's market share advange |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .069 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .302 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .062 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .352 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .131* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .049 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .073 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .270 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .038 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .570 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.16 reveals regression analysis result of organization's market share advantage and its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users. As it is shown by Table 4.16 the coefficients of the correlation results are .069, .062, .131*, .073 and .038 which implies that organization's market share advantage is positively related with its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users.
Table 4.17
Organizations profit efficiency and its relationship with product benefit related variables (N = 227)
Independent variable | Method | Organization performance related question three |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .144* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .030 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .105 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .116 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .027 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .685 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .022 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .739 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .082 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .217 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 17 reveals regression analysis result of organization's profit efficiency and its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users. As it is shown by Table 4.17 the coefficients of the correlation results are .144*, .105, .027, .022 and .082 which indicates that organizations profit efficiency is positively related with its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users.
Table 4.18
Organization's overall status and its relationship with product benefit related variables (N = 227)
Independent Variables | Method | Organization overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .031 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .644 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .069 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .302 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question three | | Pearson Correlation | − .007 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .915 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question four | | Pearson Correlation | − .065 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .327 |
N | 227 |
Product benefit related question five | | Pearson Correlation | − .108 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .105 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.18 portrays regression analysis result of organization's overall status and its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users. As it is shown by Table 4.18 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .031, − .069, − .007, − .065 and − .108 which implies that organization's overall status is negatively related with its value on customer preference during product offering process, market testing before launching the product, distribution strategy, quality of distribution system and product value for users.
Table 4.19
Organization's sales performance and its relationship with productivity related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .008 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .899 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .098 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .142 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .078 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .244 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .123 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .063 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .137* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .039 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.19 shows regression analysis result of organization's sales efficiency and customer's attitude on product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance. As it is shown by Table 4.19 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .008, .098, .098, .078, .123 and .137* which implies that organization's sales efficiency is negatively related with customer's attitude on product quality while it is positively related with product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance.
Table 4.20
Organization's market share advantage and its relationship with productivity related variables (N = 227)
Independent variable | Method | Organization's market share advantage |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .068 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .304 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .120 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .071 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .112 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .093 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .159* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .016 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .151* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .023 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.20 reveals regression analysis result of company's market share advantage and customer's attitude on product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance. As it is shown by Table 4.20 the coefficients of the correlation results are .068, .120, .112, .159* and .151* which implies that company's market share advantage is positively related with customer's attitude on product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance.
Table 4.21
Organization's sales efficiency and its relationship with productivity related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .113 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .088 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .051 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .447 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .170* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .010 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .018 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .793 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .057 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .389 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.21 shows regression analysis result of company's profit efficiency and customer's attitude towards product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance. As it is shown by Table 4.21 the coefficients of the correlation results are .113, − .051, .170*, .018and .057 which indicates that organization's profit efficiency is positively related with customer's attitude towards product quality, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance while it is negatively related with product effectiveness.
Table 4.22
Organization's overall status and its relationship with productivity related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .070 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .296 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .050 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .457 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question three | | Pearson Correlation | − .082 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .217 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .070 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .291 |
N | 227 |
Productivity related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .007 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .911 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.22 shows regression analysis result of organization's overall status and customer's attitude towards product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation, level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance. As it is shown by Table 4.22 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .070, − .050, − .082, .070 and .007 which implies that company's overall status is negatively related with customer's attitude on product quality, product effectiveness, product performance beyond consumer expectation while it is positively related with level of customer satisfaction relative to expectation and product overall performance.
Table 4.23
Organization's sales efficiency and its relationship with production process related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's sales efficiency |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Production process related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .064 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .334 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .006 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .928 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .077 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .245 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .181** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .006 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .271** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question six | | Pearson Correlation | .360** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.23 reveals regression analysis result of organizations sales efficiency and its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage. As it is shown by Table 4.23 the coefficients of the correlation results are .064, .006, .077, .181**, .271** and .360** which implies that company's sales efficiency is positively related with its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage.
Table 4.24
Organization's market share advantage and its relationship with production process related variables (N = 227)
Independent Variables | Method | Organization's market share advantage |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Production process related question one | | Pearson Correlation | − .011 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .865 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .025 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .704 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question three | | Pearson Correlation | − .051 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .441 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .266** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .314** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question six | | Pearson Correlation | .473** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.24 shows regression analysis result of company's market share advantage and its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage. As it is shown by Table 4.24 the coefficients of the correlation results are − .011, − .025, − .051, .266**, .314** and.473** which implies that organization's market share advantage is negatively related with its production plan, time and financial efficiency while it is positively related with its operational plan/strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage.
Table 4.25
Organization's profit efficiency and its relationship with production process related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization's profit efficiency |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Production process related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .028 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .680 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question two | | Pearson Correlation | − .035 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .596 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .033 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .621 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .056 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .403 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .187** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .005 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question six | | Pearson Correlation | .275** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.25 reveals regression analysis result of company's profit efficiency and its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage. As it is shown by Table 4.25 the coefficients of the correlation results are .028, − .035, .033, .056, .187** and .275** which indicates that organization's profit efficiency is positively related with and its production plan, operational strategy, market analysis before production while it is negatively related with time and financial efficiency.
Table 4.26
Organization's overall status and its relationship with production process related variables(N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Organization overall status |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Production process related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .130 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .051 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .209** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .002 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .015 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .823 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .152* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .022 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question five | | Pearson Correlation | .165* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .013 |
N | 227 |
Production process related question six | | Pearson Correlation | .129 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .052 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.26 reveals regression analysis result of organization's overall performance and its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage. As it is shown by Table 4.26 the coefficients of the correlation results are .130, .209**, .015, .152*, .165* and .129 which implies that company's overall status is positively related with its production plan, time and financial efficiency, operational strategy, market analysis before production and levels of customer involvement on product idea generation stage.
Table 4.27
Firm's market directed operation and its relationship with performance related variables overall status (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Firm's market directed operation |
Firm profitability related question one | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .085 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .204 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .178** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .007 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .212** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .233** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.27 shows regression analysis result of firm's market directed operation and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status. As it is shown by Table 4.27 the coefficients of the correlation results are .085, .178**, .212** and .233** which implies that company's market oriented operation is directly related with its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status.
Table 4.28
Firm's customer oriented operation and its relation with performance related variables (N = 227)
Independent variable | Method | Firm's customer oriented operation |
Firm profitability related question three | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .095 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .155 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .118 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .076 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .163* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .014 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .272** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.28 reveals regression analysis result of firm's customer oriented operation and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status. As it is shown by Table 4.28 the coefficients of the correlation results are .095, .118, .163* and .272** which indicates that company's customer oriented operation is positively related with its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status.
Table 4.29
Firm's competitor oriented operation and its relationship with performance related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Firm's competitor oriented operation |
Firm profitability related question four | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .101 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .128 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .132* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .048 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .089 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .180 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .237** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.29 shows regression analysis result of firm’s competitor oriented operation and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status. As it is shown by Table 4.29 the coefficients of the correlation results are .101, .132*, .089 and .237** which indicates that firm's competitor oriented operation is positively related with and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status.
Table 4.30
Firm’s production process operation and its relationship with performance related variables (N = 227)
Independent variable | Method | Firm production process oriented operation |
Firm profitability related question six | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .198** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .003 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .227** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .161* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .015 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question four | | Pearson Correlation | .210** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.30 reveals regression analysis result of firm production process oriented operation and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status. As it is shown by Table 4.30 the coefficients of the correlation results are .198**, .227**, .161* and .210** which implies that firm production process oriented operation is positively related with its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status.
Table 4.31
Firm's product oriented operation and its relationship with performance related variables (N = 227)
Independent variables | Method | Firm product oriented operation |
Firm profitability related question seven | | Pearson Correlation | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question one | | Pearson Correlation | .126 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .058 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question two | | Pearson Correlation | .216** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
N | 227 |
Organization performance related question three | | Pearson Correlation | .191** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .004 |
N | 227 |
| | Pearson Correlation | .186** |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .005 |
N | 227 |
Source: Survey on March 2010 |
Table 4.31 reveals regression analysis result of company's product oriented operation and its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status. As it is shown by Table 4.30 the coefficients of the correlation results are .126, .216**, .191** and .186** which implies that company's product oriented operation is directly related with its sales efficiency, market share advantage, profit efficiency and overall status.