This chapter presents and discusses findings of the research in a systematic way.

It starts by briefly discussing the profiles of the employees. The subsequent three sections present and discuss findings that relates to research objectives; components of performance of operations management, components of business development, relationship among the performance of business development and business development and to find out the fact whether operations management of Ladbrokes has the ability to develop businesses.

Employee profile:
Gender:

The majority of the employees were representing male 75% and female 25%
Gender Male Female Total Frequency 23 7 30 Percentage 75% 25% 100%

Experience group:
Number of Years 1 2 years 3 5 years 6 8 years 9 11 years More than 12 years Total Frequency 2 4 8 11 5 30 Percentage 6.67% 13.33% 26.67% 36.67% 16.66% 100%

Position Group: Level

Position Deputy Manager Manager Supervisor Area Manager Total Frequency 13 14 Percentage
Comment [m1]: I have change that on entire document junior level manager and senior level manager

Junior
Senior

2
1 30

43.33% 46.66% 6.66%

3.33% 100%

Components of Operations Management

To identify the components of operations management that influence the business development of Ladbrokes the author has interviewed the employees of Ladbrokes. The author has also used previous related literature to determine the components of operations management.
SL
Components of Operations Management

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Service quality & customer-satisfaction Fast delivery time On-time delivery Awareness about operational procedures Resource allocation & utilization Maintain a sound working environment Service quality & customer focus Productivity & efficiency Low cost operations High-performance design Consistent quality management Development speed Motivational & Leadership skill Awareness about operational procedures Creativity & Innovation

Components of Business Development:

To identify the components of Business development the author has used the information given by the employees of Ladbrokes during the interview. The author has also used previous study about business development.

SL 1 2 3 4 5 6

Components of Business Development Market share Customer retention & acquisition Customer profitability Product/service profitability New Product development & Product diversification Increased sales & promotional activities

Measuring the Performance of Operations Management of Ladbrokes:

To measure the performance of operations management the author has used 15 statements against which the employees are requested to mark a rating that will evaluate the performance based on the identified components of operations management. The employees were asked for a self-assessment of their performance. The 5 Likert Scale was used to convert their performance in to measurable values in order to perform a quantitative analysis. Score criteria were as below: 1- Performance does not meet the criteria. 2- Performance is less than the standard criteria. 3- Performance is meeting the standard criteria. 4- Performance is above the standard criteria. 5- Performance is above the standard criteria and meeting more than expectations.

The 15 statements were sub-divided in to four groups to measure the performance of operations management based on: Customer base, Procedures & practices, Business & productivity and Leadership ability. These four groups were again categorized in to more attributes from which it has become very easy to measure the performance of operations management.

Category Customers based

Attributes

Service quality & customer-satisfaction Product & service knowledge New product or services development & diversification Procedures and practices Resource allocation, utilization & cost minimization. Awareness about operational procedures Developing & Maintaining a safety working environment Developing a customer friendly working environment Business and productivity Goal achieving attitude & effort Selecting appropriate courses of actions to gain competitive advantages over the rivals. Sound Team work to achieve business plan Comply with human resources policies & rules Problem solving & Decision making skill. Leadership behaviors Leadership & Motivational skill Relationship with the co-workers. Creativity & Innovation

Attribute category Customers based Procedures and practices Business & productivity Leadership behaviors

Total Percentage Points (%) 20.25 26.08 33.53 20.14

Percentage points (Male) (%) 14.93 19.56 25.15 15.10

Percentage points (Female) (%) 4.98 6.52 8.38 5.03

Major attributes that describes the measurement of performance management in the context of business development are customer based, procedures & practices, business & productivity and leadership behavior. Findings shows that 20.25% score was associated with customer base, 26.08% score associated with procedure & practices, business & productivity comprised of 33.53 score and leadership behavior comprised of 20.14% score. Appendix D & E

Table: Performance Management

Performance Criteria
Attributes Customers based Provide, manage and sustain the front-line service to customers that Service quality & will enhance the companys customerpositions as well as to encourage satisfaction repeat business. Develop and maintain a working knowledge of products and Product & service services to support business knowledge operations. Identify opportunities to offer appropriate products and services to meet customer needs and expectations. Procedures and practices Manage the use of related Resource equipment to support the business allocation, plan utilization & cost minimization. Carry out relevant procedures in the event of emergency. Awareness about operational procedures New product or services development & diversification

Frequency as per Likert Scale 1 2 3 4 5

Mean for each category

Interpretatio n

11

10

4.00

Performance is above the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria

13

3.73

13

3.67

11

3.67

Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard

12

3.80

Develop and maintain a health and Developing & safety working environment Maintaining a safety working

14

3.73

environment Develop and maintain positive Developing a work environment. customer friendly working environment Business and productivity Control of business margin in order to achieve plan

criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria

10

3.73

Goal achieving attitude & effort

13

3.67

Performance is meeting the standard criteria

Monitor, anticipate and respond to competitor activity as appropriate. Review and spot opportunities for business development.

Selecting appropriate courses of actions to gain competitive advantages over the rivals.

17

3.87

Performance is meeting the standard criteria

Implement staff activities to Sound Team work achieve objectives within the to achieve business plan. business plan Implementing Human Resources Comply with policies and procedure within the human resources authority levels policies & rules Lead meetings and group Problem solving discussions of the team to solve & Decision problems and make decisions. making skill. Leadership Behaviors

13

4.03

Performance is above the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria

12

3.73

15

3.90

Motivates and develops the team.

Leadership & Motivational skill

10

12

3.83

Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the standard criteria Performance is meeting the

Aware of attitudes and views of others and able to adjust approach Relationship with accordingly. the co-workers.

11

11

3.80

Comes up with creative ideas for improvements

Creativity & Innovation

13

3.90

standard criteria

From the above table it is found that the performance is meeting the standard criteria for the employees of the operations management of Ladbrokes.
Relationship between Performance of Operations management and business development in the context of Ladbrokes:
One of the objectives of this research was to find out whether there is a relationship between performance of operations management and business development. The researcher has conducted a survey among the employees of Ladbrokes in order to measure their performance and also the employees were asked to give their view based on their performance and experience whether Ladbrokes has the ability to maximize profitability and turnover by sustaining the provision of products.

The question was: As a result of your experience, does management performance affects the ability to maximize profitability and turnover by sustaining the provision of products? The employees were given opportunity to show their view based on the following scores: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5

After collecting the information from questionnaires and interview sheet, the score of performance measurement and the score of business development was processed and analyzed. The researcher has developed a structured model, where business development was a dependent variable that depends on the independent variable performance of operations management. Business development (Y) Depends on The score obtained from the business development was indicated by Y and the score obtained from the performance measurement was indicated by X. The researcher then analyzed the scores and tried to find out whether there is a relationship between X and Y through the use of correlation of co-efficient (r). In 1890 A.D. Karl Pearson first introduced a formula to measure the relationship between two Performance of Operations management (X)

variables. The formula is described in Appendix:F. Karl-Pearson Correlation of co-efficient is used to find out a relationship between two (2) variables. The value of r is between +1 and -1. Where +1 indicates a positive relation and -1 indicates a negative relation. After processing and analyzing of data the researcher found the value of r = +0.91, which indicates that there exists a positive and strong relationship between Business development and Performance of Operations Management. The calculation of correlation co-efficient of r is described in Appendix: F. From the above description it can be concluded that greater performance of Operations Management leads to a remarkable and sound Business Development.

Business Development ability of Ladbrokes:

Based on their performance and experience the employees were asked a question to explore their view whether their performance is in a standard level to develop more business by their organization in East London. Total score obtained from the 30 employees was 126. Average Mean was 4.20 which fall in the category 4.20 (Agree). That means the employees view about business development against their performance and experience was that Ladbrokes will be able to develop their business in East London.

Business Development Statement As a result of your experience, does management performance affects the ability to maximize profitability and turnover by sustaining the provision of products? Attributes Business Development ability

Frequency as per Likert Scale 1 2 3 4 5

Mean

Interpretation

10

13

4.20

Agree

All the employees were divided into 2 groups: (i) (ii) Senior level employee and Junior level employee.

The number of senior level employee was 17 & their total score about Ladbrokes Business development ability was 69. The number of junior level employee was 13 and their total score on business development was 57.

Employee Category

No of Employees

Percentage Points (%)

Senior Level Employee Junior Level Employee Total

17 13 30

54.76 45.24 100

Business Development Employee Category Senior Level Employee Junior Level Employee

Frequency as per Likert Scale 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 3 4 8 2 5 5 8

Mean for each category 4.06 4.38

Interpretation

Agree Agree

Now the author will test whether there is any significant difference between the expressions of these 2 groups about the business development ability of Ladbrokes. The expression is measured in terms of Mean. The mean of score collected from Manager level employees about business development ability of Ladbrokes was 4.38 and the mean of score collected from Officer level employees about business development ability of Ladbrokes was 4.06. t-test was first introduced by W.S. Gosset in 1908 A.D. t-statistics is used to evaluate means collected from 2 groups when sample size is small, i.e. less than 30. In short, Gosset developed a test statistic that took into account the greater sampling error associated with small samples. Box, J. F.

(1987). We use this test for comparing the means of two samples. Generally speaking, the t-test compares the actual difference between two means in relatio n to the variation in the data, expressed as the standard deviation of t he difference between the means . John Berry and Pasi Sahlberg (1996) have used t-statistics in their research to investigate whether there is any significant difference in ideas of learning between 2 students group. In our research we will use tstatistics to find out whether there is any significant difference between the comments of Junior level employees and Senior level employees. The formula of t-statistics is described in Appendix G.

Employee Category

Junior Level Employee

Senior Level Employee

Sample Size Mean Standard Deviation

13 4.38 0.73

17 4.06 0.84

Two Hypotheses was constructed, Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis. In Null Hypothesis it is assumed that there is no significant difference between these two mean and in Alternative Hypothesis it is assumed that there exists a significant difference between these two mean.

Construction of Hypothesis:
Hypothesis testing or significance testing is a rule that decides on the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis based on the results of random samples of the population under consideration. The result is found by using statistical tools. Professor John Berry (2005). According to SP Gupa A hypothesis which states that there is no difference between assumed and actual value of the parameter is the null hypothesis . Prabir Roy & M.A. Kalam, (2001) As per V.K. Kapoor Any hypothesis which is complementary to the null hypothesis is called an alternative hypothesis. Prabir Roy & M.A. Kalam (2001)

Comment [m2]: Can you please double check argument on both hypothesis done on proper academic way. Find out it from any reliable source like journals, research methodology documents, other dissertation etc

Null Hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference between the mean of senior level employees and junior level employees. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between the mean of senior level employees and junior level employees. T-statistics was used to test these 2 hypothesis as the sample size of junior level employee is n1=13 which is less than 30 and the sample size of Senior level employee is n2=17 which is also less than 30. After necessary calculations the value of t was found t=1.14. On the other hand at 5% level of significance and at 28 (13+17-2) degree of freedom the table value of t = 1.701. As calculated value of t=1.14 is less than the table value of t = 1.701, so Null Hypothesis H0 is accepted. And alternative Hypothesis H1 is rejected. Appendix G Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between the mean of junior level employees and senior level employees. (Accepted) Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference bet ween the mean of junior level employees and senior level employees. (Rejected) That means there is no significant difference between the two means. Hence the comments about business development ability of Ladbrokes obtained from the two groups of Senior level Employees and Junior level employees dont have any disagreement. So, from the employees point of view it can be concluded that Ladbrokes has the ability to develop their business in East London area. Business Performance Analysis: The author has taken interview of Ladbrokes management in order to find out the status of some business performance indicators.

Business Development factors

Number of shops Number of products Product Diversification & new product

Status
Increasing Increasing Increasing

Implementation Market share Customer retention Service quality Employee efficiency Cost control Volume of sales Profitability Economic Decision Making Skill Financial condition Resource availability Creativity & Innovation Increasing Increasing Increasing Increasing Optimum Increasing Increasing Improving Increasing Increasing Increasing

Fig: Business Performance Analysis Table For security & privacy reasons many information was not disclosed by the management. But It was found that the status of most of the indicators was sound and in an increasing condition.

Please

do

swot

analysis

hereand

make

comments about business development ability of Ladbrokes based on swot analysis.

Summary:

In this chapter the researcher processed and analyzed the collected data to find out the answers of the research objectives. The chapter starts by presenting the profiles of the employees of the Ladbrokes operations management by showing their gender and length of service. The researcher has identified the components of operations management and the components of business

development. Then the researcher measured the performance of operations management by using questionnaires. The author has measured the performance of operations management based on four criteria: (i) Customer based (ii) Procedures & practices (iii) Business & productivity (iv) Leadership behavior. A 5 point Likert scale was used to measure the performance. Finding shows that 20.25% score was associated with customer base, 26.08% score associated with procedure & practices, business & productivity comprised of 33.53 score and leadership behavior comprised of 20.14% score. The mean performance of the operations management was found 3.80 (Performance meets standard criteria). Next the author found a positive relationship
between Business Development and Performance of Operations Management by using the correlation of co-efficient (r). The value of r was +0.91 which indicates a strong relationship between Business Development and Performance of Operations Management. Then the author analyzed the comments of two employee groups: Senior level employees and junior level employees about business development ability of Ladbrokes using 5 Likert Scale and found a Mean = 4.2 indicate employees have a positive attitude and standard performance level in business development capability. The Mean of Senior level employees and junior level employees about business development ability was 4.06 & 4.38 respectively. The author then tested these two mean by using t statistics and developed Hypothesis to check whether there is any significant difference between the comments of these 02 (two) groups of employee category and found that there is no significant difference. In the next section the author has drawn a business performance analysis of Ladbrokes by measuring the status of the various business factors and found that all the indicators are in an increasing trend which points out positive business development ability. Considering the above facts it can be concluded that the performance of operations management of Ladbrokes is above standard level to develop businesses in East London area

Reference:

1. Box, J. F. (1987), Guinness, Gosset, Fisher, and small samples. Statistical Science, 2(1), 45 52. 2. Cox, J.F., Blackstone, J.H. and Schleier, J.G. (2003), Managing Operations: A Focus on Excellence. 3. Colin Armistead and Simon Machin (2007), Implications of business process management for operations management, The Business School at Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK. 4. John Berry and Pasi Sahlberg (1996), Investigating pupils ideas of learning, Centre for Teaching Mathematics, University of Plymouth, UK. 5. Lynch, R.L. and Cross, K.F. (1991), Measure up! The Essential Guide to Measuring Business Performance, Mandarin, London. 6. Larry P. Ritzman, Lee J. Krajewski, (2006), Operations Management, Strategy and Analysis.

7. Mahesh C. Gupta and Lynn H. Boyd (2006), Theory of constraints: A theory for operations management, College of Business, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. 8. Nottingham University UK. 2010. [online] Available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nubs/Divisions/OpsMan/Research.html, [Accessed December 03 2010] 9. Porter, L., Oakland, J. and Gadd, K. (1998), ``Unlocking business performance with selfassessment'', Management Accounting, Vol. 76 No. 8, pp. 35-7. 10. Professor John Berry (2005), Quantitative Methods in Education Research, Centre for Teaching Mathematics, University of Plymouth. 11. Prabir Roy & M.A. Kalam, (2001), Business Statistics.

12. Schroeder, R. (2008), Operations Management, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.

Appendix D: Questionnaires
Average Performance Management Score per Employee
4.40 3.80 4.67 3.40 3.60 3.07 3.13 3.73 3.87 2.67 4.00 3.67 2.80 3.47 3.73 4.00 4.40 3.67 4.13 4.67 4.53 3.07 4.47 2.93 4.00 3.87 4.40 4.47 3.20 4.33 114.13

10

11

12

13

14

15

Total Performance Management Score (X)

1 2 3 4

4 3 4 4

5 4 5 3 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 2 4 3 5 4 3 3
112

4 3 5 4 4 2 3 4 5 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 2 5 3 3 4 4 5 4 4
110

5 5 4 3 3 3 3 5 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 3 3 5 5 4 2 4
110

5 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 2 5 2 3 4 4 4 3 5
114

5 4 5 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 4
112

4 3 5 4 4 3 2 5 3 2 3 5 2 3 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 3
112

4 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 5 3 3 3 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 5
110

5 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5
116

4 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 4 2 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 2 5 2 5 5 5 5 3 4
118

4 4 5 3 4 4 2 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 4 2 5
115

4 3 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4
117

5 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 5
115

4 3 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 4 2 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 4
114

4 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 5 5 2 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 5
117

66 57 70 51 54 46 47 56 58 40 60 55 42 52 56 60 66 55 62 70 68 46 67 44 60 58 66 67 48 65 1712

Senior level employee

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

5 5 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 5

Junior level employee

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

5 5 3 4 3 5 4 4 5 3 5
120

30 Total

Business Development Score (Y)

5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 126

Employee

Category

Average Score

3.80

4.20

Appendix E:
Performance ManagementAttributes Customers based: 1. Service quality & customersatisfaction 2. Product & service knowledge 3. New product or services development & diversification Procedures and practices: 4. Resource allocation, utilization & cost minimization. 5. Awareness about operational procedures 6. Developing & Maintaining a safety working environment 7. Developing a customer friendly working environment Business and productivity: 8. Goal achieving attitude & effort 9. Selecting appropriate courses of actions to gain competitive advantages over the rivals. 10. Sound Team work to achieve business plan 11. Comply with human resources policies & rules 12. Problem solving & Decision making skill. Leadership behaviours: 13. Leadership & Motivational skill 14. Relationship with the coworkers. 15. Creativity & Innovation 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 11 7 12 11 13 7 7 8 115 114 117 3.83 3.80 3.90 Average Mean 0 2 13 8 7 110 3.67 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 11 9 9 10 9 12 14 9 7 7 5 8 110 114 112 112 3.67 3.80 3.73 3.73 3.84 Frequency as per Likert Scale 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 3 8 8 9 4 11 13 13 5 10 6 5 120 112 110 4.00 3.73 3.67 3.73 fx Mean for each attribute Mean for each category 3.80

17

116

3.87

0 0 0

2 4 0

8 7 9

7 12 15

13 7 6

121 112 117

4.03 3.73 3.90 3.84

3.80

Appendix F:
No. of Employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Performance Management Score (X) 66 57 70 51 54 46 47 56 58 40 60 55 42 52 56 60 66 55 62 70 68 46 67 44 66 58 66 67 48 65 X = 1718 Business Development Score (Y) 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 Y = 126 X.Y 330 228 350 204 216 138 141 224 232 120 240 220 126 260 224 300 330 220 310 350 340 138 335 132 330 232 330 335 144 325 X.Y = 7404
2

4356 3249 4900 2601 2916 2116 2209 3136 3364 1600 3600 3025 1764 2704 3136 3600 4356 3025 3844 4900 4624 2116 4489 1936 4356 3364 4356 4489 2304 4225 X =100660
2

25 16 25 16 16 9 9 16 16 9 16 16 9 25 16 25 25 16 25 25 25 9 25 9 25 16 25 25 9 25 Y = 548

Appe

ix G:
Business Devel pment Sc re ( ) 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 T tal Sc re = 69 x2 n1

Comment [m3]: Where this eq ation from? Whose? Why we using it? Please explain the esta l ishment of this equation

Sa ple Size, n1 = 17

S1 =

=0.73

Sample Size, n2 = 13

1 2 3 4 5 6

4 5 5 5 3 5

Juni r level Empl yees

Business Devel pment Sc re ( )

Se i r Level E p l yees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mean X

x=X-X 0.94 -0.06 0.94 -0.06 -0.06 -1.06 -1.06 -0.06 -0.06 -1.06 -0.06 -0.06 -1.06 0.94 -0.06 0.94 0.94 X2

x2
0.89 0 0.89 0 0 1.12 1.12 0 0 1.12 0 0 1.12 0.89 0 0.89 0.89 8.94

4.06

Comment [m4]: How you getting this s1 from

the equation and why?

Mean Y

y=Y-Y -0.38 0.62 0.62 0.62 -1.38 0.62

0.15 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.92 0.38

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

3 5 4 5 5 3 5 Total Score = 57

4.38

-1.38 0.62 -0.38 0.62 0.62 -1.38 0.62 y

2

1.92 0.38 0.15 0.38 0.38 1.92 0.38 9.08

S2 =

y2 n2

= 0.84

Employee Category

Junior Level Employee

Senior Level Employee

Sample Size Mean

13 4.38

17 4.06

Standard Deviation

0.73

0.84

S=

(n1 S12+ (n2-1) S22 -1) n1+n2-2 = 0.77

X- Y t= S

n1. n2 = 1.14 n1 + n2
Comment [m5]: You need explain a bit of details and reason of establishment about the formula, whose formula are they that we are u sing here, reliability of formula, how this formula useful to find out the figure..etc