HR ANALYTICS

Contents
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE ANALYSIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 2
DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
TRAINING DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-1 ............................................................................. 6
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-2 ............................................................................. 8
MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 10
MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON DEPARTMENT........................................................................................... 11
PEOPLE NOT ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE LEARNING ........................................................................................ 12

1|Page
 HR ANALYTICS
GAURAV CHATURVEDI
MBA-2, 20162164

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE ANALYSIS STRUCTURE

Questions to be Answered via this analysis:

Q.1 Is it beneficial for Pilgrim Bank if more customers use online banking ?
Q.2 What is the Impact of Training on the employees: Are they Motivated to implement the learning?

Q.3 How has the perspective towards the customer satisfaction has changed?

Q.4 What is the overall training effectiveness on the Motivation level, Manager Support and Peer Support?

Q.5 Identify those individuals who need immediate attention in motivation, improve manager support?

Q.6 Frame hypothesis to perform multiple regression for the significance of numerous factors on training
effectiveness and test the hypothesis.

Q.7 Study the experience pattern and gender diversity in different departments

Q.8 Employees not feeling motivated, or feel that the training program is ineffective, Training need
Identification can be done again for these employees.

The given questionnaire refers to the feedback on training effectiveness on the performance and motivation of
the employees of 21 departments. The findings are

2|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

DEMOGRAPHICS
This is one of the things to start wth.We ought to calculate the gender diversity of the participated work force:

GENDER
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid FEMALE 41 12.3 12.4 12.4
MALE 290 86.8 87.6 100.0
Total 331 99.1 100.0
Missing System 3 .9
Total 334 100.0

The Gender diversity is a concern but depends upon the policy of the concerned company. Only
12.3% of the workforce is female. The company may want to increase the number of female
employees.
We can also study the gender dispersion as per the experience levels of the employees

3|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

Crosstabs

GENDER * EXPERIENCE IN YEARS Crosstabulation

Count
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS
0-3 3-5 5-10 >10 Total
GENDER FEMALE 5 7 17 12 41
MALE 25 49 104 110 288
Total 30 56 121 122 329

AGE IN YEARS * EXPERIENCE IN YEARS Crosstabulation

Count
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS
0-3 3-5 5-10 >10 Total
AGE IN YEARS 21-25 8 5 1 0 14
26-30 16 20 34 0 70
31-35 5 13 34 20 72
36-40 0 12 23 23 58
>40 1 6 30 81 118
Total 30 56 122 124 332

As per the Gender Experience cross tabulated data,:

1. There is a shortage of young employees,
2. The young employees do not classify for this training.
Both the cases are alarming. The probability of older employees to get sick is higher. This also gives
the impression that many young employees leave the company. In the latter case, the training need
identification has to be done for the young employees and also find that why is their participation so
less.
On the positive note ,this data also shows that the 74.09 % employees are associated with the
companies for more than 5 years which reflects the intention to stay of the employees. This may be
attributed to an excellent work environment and HR polices of the company.

4|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

TRAINING DESIGN

20 percent of respondents are below neutral or dissatisfied which gives the trainer an opportunity to
further develop her training program by taking feedback about the disliked factor into consideration

AVG_TRAINING Total

2.0 2.2

1.00 1.50 0 5 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.33 4.50 4.67 4.75 5.00

COMMUNICATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

CUSTOMER SERVICES 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 4 7 5 0 4 0 2 1 31

ENGINEERING 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 6 12 5 1 13 0 4 4 53

ENVIRONMENTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

PROTECTION,HEALTH & SAFETY

FINANCE 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 17 3 0 1 0 4 3 42

GENERAL MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 8

HUMAN RESOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 6

INTERNAL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

LEGAL & COMPLIANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

MANUFACTURING 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 7 3 0 4 1 1 6 32

MARKETING 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 2 17

PRODUCT MANAGEMENT & PPM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 2 3 13

QUALITY 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 2 1 13

QUALITY MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

REAL ESTATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 3 3 13

SALES 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 19 6 0 5 0 4 4 48

SCM PROCUREMENT / LOGISTICS 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 5 5 0 6 0 5 4 31

Senior Manager - IT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

STRATEGY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Total 2 1 4 6 3 6 4 13 21 29 97 40 2 39 1 29 34 331

5|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
AVG_TRAINING 333 1.00 5.00 4.0543 .68849
Valid N (listwise) 333

The median score is 4 and the mean score is 4.053, which signifies that most of the participants are
satisfied with the training design. 20 employees are not fully satisfied with the training design and
further improvements may be done regarding the Training need Identification of those employees.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-1

As we already saw that the training design analysis, we can relate the training design to the ACE Aspect and
NDS by running a correlation between them. We can form a Hypothesis:

PERFORMING THE HYPOTHESIS TEST /SETTING UP THE HYPOTHESES:

Null Hypothesis: Ho: = 0

Alternate Hypothesis: Ha: not = 0

What the hypotheses mean in words:

Null Hypothesis Ho: The population correlation coefficient IS NOT significantly different from 0. There IS NOT
a significant linear relationship(correlation) between TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS AND NDS in the
population.

Alternate Hypothesis Ha: The population correlation coefficient IS significantly DIFFERENT FROM 0. There
IS A SIGNIFICANT LINEAR RELATIONSHIP (correlation) between TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS
AND NDS in the population.

To test our hypothesis, we may like to run a regression of one variable over the other:

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 AVG_TRAINING . Enter
b

a. Dependent Variable: AVG_ACE_ASPECTS

b. All requested variables entered.

6|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .682a .465 .464 .46853
a. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_TRAINING

This shows that there is significant amount of correlation between the training design and overall after
impact called ACE aspect and NDS. A R sq value of 0.465 explains that 46.5% of aftereffects can be
explained by the implementation of training design.

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 63.018 1 63.018 287.068 .000b
Residual 72.443 330 .220
Total 135.461 331
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_ACE_ASPECTS
b. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_TRAINING

As we can see that the p value at F(1,330) is < 0.005, hence the results are statistically significant
and Null hypothesis cannot be accepted..
This means that our alternate hypothesis that there is significant linear relationship between
TRAINING DESIGN and ACE ASPECTS AND NDS in the company.

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Interval
Coefficients Coefficients for B
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) 1.654 .154 10.723 .000 1.350 1.957
AVG_TRAININ .635 .037 .682 16.943 .000 .561 .709
G
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_ACE_ASPECTS

There is no significant deviation from 0, implies that our regression model is a good fit.
This means that by increasing the training effectiveness through all the departments better efficiency
and customer centric goals may be achieved.

7|Page
 HR ANALYTICS
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS-2

Let us now analyze the effect of other factors on Training Effectiveness viz. peer support, and
Manager Support by plotting a multiple regression for the same. Our hypothesis remains the same:

Null Hypothesis: Ho: = 0

Alternate Hypothesis: Ha: not = 0

What the hypotheses mean in words:

Null Hypothesis Ho: The population correlation coefficient IS NOT significantly different from 0. There IS NOT
a significant linear relationship(correlation) between Peer and Manager support with ACE Aspect and NDS
in the population.

Alternate Hypothesis Ha: The population correlation coefficient IS significantly DIFFERENT FROM 0. There
IS A SIGNIFICANT LINEAR RELATIONSHIP (correlation) between Peer and Manager support with Peer
and Manager support with ACE Aspect and NDS in the population.

Regression

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
1 AVG_PEER_SUP . Enter
PORT,
AVG_MGR_SUPP
ORT,
AVG_PP_EXT_B
EH,
AVG_TRAINING,
AVG_PP_INT_BE
Hb
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
b. All requested variables entered.

8|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

Model Summaryb
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .696a .485 .477 .43533
a. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_PEER_SUPPORT, AVG_MGR_SUPPORT,
AVG_PP_EXT_BEH, AVG_TRAINING, AVG_PP_INT_BEH
b. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 58.118 5 11.624 61.335 .000b
Residual 61.780 326 .190
Total 119.899 331
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION
b. Predictors: (Constant), AVG_PEER_SUPPORT, AVG_MGR_SUPPORT, AVG_PP_EXT_BEH,
AVG_TRAINING, AVG_PP_INT_BEH

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence Interval for
Coefficients Coefficients B
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) .533 .198 2.694 .007 .144 .922
AVG_TRAINING .140 .049 .160 2.857 .005 .044 .236
AVG_PP_INT_BEH .285 .052 .328 5.517 .000 .183 .386
AVG_PP_EXT_BEH .062 .029 .094 2.148 .032 .005 .119
AVG_MGR_SUPPOR .122 .046 .110 2.635 .009 .031 .212
T
AVG_PEER_SUPPOR .220 .045 .251 4.910 .000 .132 .308
T
a. Dependent Variable: AVG_MOTIVATION

If we look at the table of co efficient, the significance value of all the factors except Externalization
behavior of employees are <0.05 and thus are crucial factors to decide the motivation. In the table,
we can also see that Internal Motivation and Peer Support of employee is also important.

9|Page
 HR ANALYTICS

MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON EXPERIENCE

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
AVG_MOTIVATION * 331 99.1% 3 0.9% 334 100.0%
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS

AVG_MOTIVATION * EXPERIENCE IN YEARS Crosstabulation

Count
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS
0-3 3-5 5-10 >10 Total
AVG_MOTIVATION 1.25 0 0 0 1 1
1.75 0 0 1 0 1
2.00 0 0 0 1 1
2.25 0 1 3 0 4
2.33 0 0 1 0 1
2.50 1 2 3 2 8
2.75 3 4 5 4 16
3.00 1 4 9 6 20
3.25 4 5 21 20 50
3.33 0 0 0 1 1
3.50 3 14 19 25 61
3.75 5 7 22 26 60
4.00 3 11 17 20 51
4.25 4 4 9 4 21
4.50 3 1 7 4 15
4.75 1 2 3 4 10
5.00 2 1 2 5 10
Total 30 56 122 123 331

170 employees who are of the experience group have given their response less than 4 i.,e either they are
neutral or not motivated. This is due to the response that this lot feels overloaded with work. What is more
alarming is that out of the 30 young generation employees in the first column, 17 have their mean responses,
either neutral or not motivated.
This particular group has to be counselled immediately

10 | P a g e
 HR ANALYTICS

MOTIVATION ANALYSIS-BASED ON DEPARTMENT

DEPARTMENT * AVG_ACE_ASPECTS < 4 (FILTER)

Crosstabulation
Count
AVG_ACE_ASP
ECTS < 4
(FILTER)
Selected Total
DEPARTMENT CUSTOMER SERVICES 3 3
ENGINEERING 12 12
ENVIRONMENTAL 1 1
PROTECTION,HEALTH &
SAFETY
FINANCE 10 10
GENERAL MANAGEMENT 3 3
HUMAN RESOURCES 1 1
LEGAL & COMPLIANCE 1 1
MANUFACTURING 6 6
MARKETING 2 2
PRODUCT MANAGEMENT 1 1
& PPM
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2 2
QUALITY 4 4
QUALITY MANAGEMENT 1 1
RESEARCH & 1 1
DEVELOPMENT
SALES 9 9
SCM PROCUREMENT / 5 5
LOGISTICS
STRATEGY 1 1
Total 63 63

On the same lines the particular employees of the department Quality, Manufacturing, Sales and
Engineering should be given training and counselling to increase their motivation levels.

11 | P a g e
 HR ANALYTICS

PEOPLE NOT ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE LEARNING

EXPERIENCE IN YEARS * AVG_ACE_ASPECTS < 4 (FILTER)

Crosstabulation
Count
AVG_ACE_ASPECTS < 4
(FILTER)
Not Selected Selected Total
EXPERIENCE IN YEARS 0-3 13 4 17
3-5 28 9 37
5-10 62 22 84
>10 64 22 86
Total 167 57 224

DEPARTMENT * AVG_ACE_ASPECTS < 4 (FILTER) Crosstabulation

Count
AVG_ACE_ASPECTS < 4
(FILTER)
Not Selected Selected Total
DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS 2 0 2
CUSTOMER SERVICES 19 2 21
ENGINEERING 31 11 42
ENVIRONMENTAL 1 1 2
PROTECTION,HEALTH &
SAFETY
FINANCE 18 9 27
GENERAL MANAGEMENT 3 3 6
HUMAN RESOURCES 3 1 4
INTERNAL SERVICES 2 0 2
LEGAL & COMPLIANCE 3 1 4
MANUFACTURING 15 6 21
MARKETING 7 2 9
PRODUCT MANAGEMENT 2 1 3
& PPM
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 5 0 5
QUALITY 7 4 11
QUALITY MANAGEMENT 1 1 2

12 | P a g e
 HR ANALYTICS
RESEARCH & 6 1 7
DEVELOPMENT
SALES 25 9 34
SCM PROCUREMENT / 15 5 20
LOGISTICS
STRATEGY 2 1 3
Total 167 58 225

The same analysis goes here as well and employees based on these two tables should be asked to
retrain until their scores are high as well because as a company I should make sure that all my
training programs are 100 % effective.

13 | P a g e