8 Stat

4.1.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
For the research, descriptive statistics include the numbers, charts and graphs used to describe, organize and present data on each variable. For the research eight variables were determined: Lenders trustworthy, Assurance of Credit Risk, Requirement, types of loan, New Loans, Loans against documentary bills payment, factor for providing a customer loan, significant is dependent variables. Values of the variables were derived after averaging three questions under each variable. Mean, standard deviation, variance, minimum & maximum value for each value is shown in the following table. TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics of all variables
Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 2.29 4.43
N MEAN of Lenders Trustworthy MEAN of Assurance of Credit Risk MEAN of Credit Analysis MEAN of Consideration Factor MEAN of Significance Valid N (list wise) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mean 3.6714
Std. Deviation .44323
Variance .196
2.00
4.83
3.5183
.53070
.282
1.60 1.60
4.80 4.60
3.6480 3.4440
.65697 .59396
.432 .353
2.50
4.67
3.8333
.52384
.274
This table provides the basic statistical information about the data set, such as showing the mean response for average of five questions for each variable individual questions and its deviation from the mean. For this information, for instance we find that the among the 100 participants 72were male and 28 were female which is 72% male & 28% female. Participants of the research came from various age groups. Age range of the participants is 20 to above 40. But most of the participants belongs to the age group 25 -34 & 31 -35. These descriptive statistics of the entire data set has been represented in Table 1 (given in Appendix).
4.2. Frequency distribution and charts

Graphical representation of data and frequency distribution:
Table4.2.1: Gender of the respondents

Frequency
Valid
Percent 72.0 28.0 100.0
Valid Percent 72.0 28.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 72.0 100.0
Male Female Total
72 28 100
28
72
Figure 4.2.1: Diagram showing the frequency distribution of gender
There were 100 respondents of which 72 were male and 28 were female. These respondents are all employees and customers in BASIC Bank Limited from various departments in various branches. From the various branches we found that the numbers of male employees are more than the female employees.
Table 4.2.2: Respondents Age Distribution

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25-30
Valid
38 37
38.0 37.0
38.0 37.0
38.0 75.0
35-40
31-35 40 & above Total
15 10 100
15.0 10.0 100.0
15.0 10.0 100.0
90.0 100.0
40 & above
10
35-40
37
31-35
15
25-30
38
Figure 4.2.2: Chart showing the frequency age distribution of the respondent
Out of 100 respondents, 38% of the respondents belong to 25 - 30 age range, 15% of the respondents belong to 31-35 age range, 37% of the respondents are in the age group of 35 45 and the rest 10% of the respondents age are above 40. The numbers of respondents working in BASIC Bank are mostly in their mid thirties. However, there are also a significant number of employees who are at their mid twenties. This shows that BASIC Bank Limited has a young labor force as Well as young entrepreneurs and there are only few who are above forties.
Table 4.2.3: Respondents Educational background

science
Valid
29 27 31 10 3
50
29.0 27.0 31.0 10.0 3.0

100.0
29.0 27.0 31.0 10.0 3.0

100.0
29.0 56.0 87.0 97.0 100.0
commerce Arts vocational others

Total
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 3 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 31 29 27
Figure 4.2.3: Chart showing the frequency Educational background distribution of the respondents Of the respondents 29% of above respondents education background are science, 27% are from commerce education background, 31% respondents are from Arts, and 10% are vocational and others 3%.
Employees of BASIC bank Limited are from various educational backgrounds. From the 50 sample size, 16 employees are from Arts, Science and Commerce are almost same 14 and 13 each. Only a few employees are from vocational and others types of educational background.
Table 4.2.5: Lenders Potential

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree

Total
5 19 14 7 5
50
10.0 38.0 28.0 14.0 10.0

100.0
10.0 38.0 28.0 14.0 10.0

100.0
10.0 48.0 76.0 90.0 100.0
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree
Figure 4.2.5: Showing the frequency distribution of Lenders Potential
Of the 50 respondents 10% strongly agreed to the satisfaction in the current IT system used in the current process, 14% agreed, 28% are neutral about the satisfaction with the IT system, 38% disagreed that there is no satisfaction and 10% strongly disagreed.
Most of the employees are unconcerned about the Lenders potential. Although a significant number of employees are satisfied with their current process they use. It is because, employees Table4.2.6: Lenders Honesty
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total 1 5 6 28 10 50 2.0 10.0 12.0 56.0 20.0 100.0 2.0 10.0 12.0 56.0 20.0 100.0 2.0 12.0 24.0 80.0 100.0
arent aware of the different method or software used in the job.
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral
agree
strongly agree
Figure 4.2.6: Showing the frequency distribution of Lenders Honesty
Of the 100 respondents 20% strongly agreed to the current process, 56% agreed, 12% are neutral about the satisfaction with the existing method system while 10% disagreed and thought they shouldnt take it as a and 2% strongly disagreed.
Maximum no. of employees is not satisfied with the existing system. There is a significant no. of employees think the Existing system could hinder employees productivity.
Table 4.2.7: Asset and Liability

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree

Total
3 4 6 26 11
50
6.0 8.0 12.0 52.0 22.0

100.0
6.0 8.0 12.0 52.0 22.0

100.0
6.0 14.0 26.0 78.0 100.0
60 50 40 30 22 20 10 6 0 strongly Disagree 8 12 52
Disagree
Neutral
agree
strongly agree
Figure 4.2.7: Showing the frequency distribution of Asset and Liability

Of the 100 respondents 22% strongly agreed that the current method by the management used decrease overall efficiency, 52% agreed, 12% are neutral with the current process, 8% disagreed that Existing system does not decrease overall efficiency and 5% strongly disagreed.
According to a large number of respondents, they are not happy with the liability. They think that existing liability decrease overall efficiency.
Table 4.2.8: Profitability

Frequency Valid strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
1 6 5 21 17 50
2.0 12.0 10.0 42.0 34.0 100.0
2.0 12.0 10.0 42.0 34.0 100.0
2.0 14.0 24.0 66.0 100.0
strongly Disagree, 1 strongly agree, 17
Disagree, 6
Neutral, 5
agree, 21
Figure 4.2.8: Showing the frequency distribution of Profitability
Of the respondents 34% strongly agreed to the improvement of profitability is needed when examining a new client, 42% agreed, 10% are neutral, 12% disagreed that there is no need to change that formula and 2% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees said that the practice used in their current system doesnt need to be improved. However, a significant number of employees feel the need of improvement in their current structure.
Table4.2.9: Timely Repayment
Frequency
Valid
Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 44.0 26.0 100.0
Valid Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 44.0 26.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 4.0 12.0 30.0 74.0 100.0
strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total
2 4 9 22 13 50
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 8 18 26 44
Figure 4.2.9: Showing the frequency distribution of Timely Repayment
Of the respondents 26% strongly agreed to the timely repayment is needed to ensure granting further sanction, 44% agreed, 18% are neutral about the improvement, 8% disagreed that there is no need for enhancement and 4% strongly disagreed.
Most of the employees said that timely repayment method can be improved if there is an improvement loan processing. It is because the current system used by the employees of BASIC
Table 4.2.10: Supervision

4 5 7 18 16 50
8.0 10.0 14.0 36.0 32.0 100.0
8.0 10.0 14.0 36.0 32.0 100.0
8.0 18.0 32.0 68.0 100.0
Bank Limited isnt satisfactory for which their skills arent able to enhance.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral 8 10 14
36
32
agree
strongly agree
Figure 4.2.10: Showing the frequency distribution of Supervision
Of the respondents 32% strongly agreed to perform effectively by saving time, 36% agreed, 14% are neutral about the performance, 10% disagreed that the current system helps to perform effectively and 7% strongly disagreed.
From the graph, it can be seen that most of the employees believe that improvement in supervision doesnt help them to perform effectively by saving time. It is because they are not aware of other method of doing the work. Hence, the employees dont know the effect of business process reengineering on the performance of their work.
Table 4.2.11: Monitoring
Frequency
Valid
Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 48.0 22.0 100.0
Valid Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 48.0 22.0 100.0
4 4 9 24 11 50
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 8 18 22 48
Figure 4.2.11: Showing the frequency distribution of Monitoring
Of the respondents 22% strongly agreed to perform efficiently by minimizing errors monitoring frequently, 48% agreed, 18% are neutral about the performance, 7% disagreed that monitoring frequently helps to perform efficiently and 4% strongly disagreed.
From the graph, it can be seen that most of the employees believe that improvement in monitoring process doesnt help them to perform efficiently by minimizing errors. It is because they are not aware of other method of doing the work. Hence, the employees dont know the effect of business process reengineering on the performance of their work.
Table 4.2.12: Credit Policy Frequency Valid strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total 7 20 10 10 3 50 Percent 14.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 100.0 Valid Percent 14.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 6.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 14.0 54.0 74.0 94.0 100.0
strongly agree
agree
20
Neutral
20
Disagree
20
strongly Disagree 0
14 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 4.2.12: Showing the frequency distribution of Credit Policy
Of the respondents 6% strongly agreed of their satisfaction with the credit policy they maintain in the current process, 20% agreed, 20% are neutral about the satisfaction, 40% disagreed with it and 14% strongly disagreed.
It can be seen from the graph that the employees arent satisfied with credit policy and it needs reengineering in the current process. The employees believe that there is a need of more strict policy in their current process in order to enhance their work performance.
Table 4.2.13: Credit Procedure Frequency Valid strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total 2 8 7 22 11 50 Percent 4.0 16.0 14.0 44.0 22.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4.0 16.0 14.0 44.0 22.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.0 20.0 34.0 78.0 100.0
50 40 30 20 10 4 16 14 44 22
0 strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
agree strongly agree
Figure 4.2.13: Showing the frequency distribution of Credit Procedure
Of the respondents 22% strongly agreed to the need of Credit Procedure in the unit, 44% agreed, 14% are neutral about the satisfaction, 16% disagreed with more number of skilled employees and 4% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees agreed and disagreed to the need of more of Credit procedure in the unit. It maybe because the current employees find addition of new employees to the work as a threat to their job and other welcomes the help of more techniques as they believe it can enhance the efficient level of the working environment.
Table 4.2.14: Quality of Credit Portfolio
Frequency
Valid
Percent 6.0 14.0 22.0 40.0 18.0 100.0
Valid Percent 6.0 14.0 22.0 40.0 18.0 100.0
3 7 11 20 9 50
strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
agree
strongly agree
18%
6%
14%
22% 40%
Figure 4.2.14: Showing the frequency distribution of Quality of Credit Portfolio
Of the respondents 6% strongly agreed that Quality of Credit Portfolio are necessary while 40% agreed, 22% are neutral about the necessity, 14% disagreed with the necessity and 6% strongly disagreed.
From the pie chart, it can be seen that the majority of the employees agreed to the necessity of Quality of Credit Portfolio to maximize the use of credit disbursement. Since, skilled employees are able to maximize the use of the credit disbursement then the employees who doesnt have any strategic skills.
Table 4.2.15: Continuous Loan
Frequency
Valid
Percent 4.0 14.0 14.0 50.0 18.0 100.0
Valid Percent 4.0 14.0 14.0 50.0 18.0 100.0
2 7 7 25 9 50
strongly agree agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree 0 4 10 14 14
18 50
20
30
40
50
Figure 4.2.15: Showing the frequency distribution of Continuous Loan
Of the respondents 18% strongly agreed that continuous loans are the most effective for the bank to survive, 50% agreed, 14% are neutral about the effectiveness, 14% disagreed with the effectiveness by saving time and 4% strongly disagreed.
From the graph, it can be seen that majority of the employees are being indifferent about the continuous loans in their performance through saving time. The employees are aware of the effect of continuous loans. They believe that they dont need any other loans and skills to do their job.
Table 4.2.16: Demand Loan
Frequency
Valid
Percent 2.0 14.0 10.0 48.0 26.0 100.0
Valid Percent 2.0 14.0 10.0 48.0 26.0 100.0

48

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2 strongly Disagree Disagree 14
1 7 5 24 13 50
26
10
Neutral
agree
strongly agree
Figure 4.2.16: Showing the frequency distribution of Demand Loan
Of the respondents 26% strongly agreed that Demand Loan helps to perform efficiently by minimizing transaction cost and error, 48% agreed, 10% are neutral about the efficiency, 14%
disagreed with the efficiency of demand loan by minimizing transaction cost and error and 2% strongly disagreed.
It can be seen that majority of the employees are being indifferent about the efficiency of demand loan in their performance through minimizing errors. The employees are aware of the effect of demand loan have on their performance of work.
Table 4.2.17: Term Loan
Frequency
Valid
Percent 6.0 8.0 12.0 44.0 30.0 100.0
Valid Percent 6.0 8.0 12.0 44.0 30.0 100.0
3 4 6 22 15 50
44 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 6 12 8 30
Figure 4.2.17: Showing the frequency distribution of Term Loan
Of the respondents 30% strongly agreed that Term loan helps to enhance overall efficiency, 44% agreed, 12% are neutral about the efficiency, 8% disagreed with the efficiency of term loan and 6% strongly disagreed. It is shown from the above graph that, most of the employees think that term helps to enhance their overall efficiency. If they continue sanctioning more term loan, then their overall efficiency will increase.
Table 4.2.18: New Loans in New Industry

Valid
3 6 6 22 13 50
6.0 12.0 12.0 44.0 26.0 100.0
6.0 12.0 12.0 44.0 26.0 100.0
6.0 18.0 30.0 74.0 100.0
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 6 12 12 26 44
Figure 4.2.18: Showing the frequency distribution of New Loans in New Industry
Of the respondents 26% strongly agreed that the bank should made immediate sanction if they have any request for investing in new industry as it can be effective, 44% agreed, 12% are neutral about the necessity, 12% disagreed with the necessity execution and 6% strongly disagreed. From the line graph, it can be seen that the most of the employees agreed to sanction new loans for new industry. It is because employees feel the needs of sanctioning loans in new industry could become valuable.
Table 4.2.19: Foreign Currency
3 9 12 18 8 50
6.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 16.0 100.0
6.0 18.0 24.0 36.0 16.0 100.0
6.0 24.0 48.0 84.0 100.0
strongly Disagree, 6 strongly agree, 16 Disagree, 18
agree, 36
Neutral, 24
Figure 4.2.19: Showing the frequency distribution of Foreign Currency
Of the respondents 16% strongly agreed that foreign currency will increase flexibility and adaptability that is necessary to compete with other commercial banks, 36% agreed, 24% are neutral about the flexibility and adaptability, 18% disagreed and 6% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees agreed foreign currency will increase the profitability to increase their performance.
Table 4.2.20: Local Currency Frequency Valid strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total 3 5 7 23 12 50 Percent 6.0 10.0 14.0 46.0 24.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.0 10.0 14.0 46.0 24.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.0 16.0 30.0 76.0 100.0
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 6 10 14 24 46
Figure 4.2.20: Showing the frequency distribution of Local Currency
Of the respondents 24% strongly agreed that local currency can also prove valuable and 46% agreed, 14% are neutral about the assistance, 10% disagreed with the assistance in developing new field and 6% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees are agreeing about the growth of local currency. It maybe because they believe that local currency is mandatory to develop a new route properly.
Table 4.2.21: Customer Goodwill

Valid
3 8 6 22 11 50
6.0 16.0 12.0 44.0 22.0 100.0
6.0 16.0 12.0 44.0 22.0 100.0
6.0 22.0 34.0 78.0 100.0
strongly agree agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree 0
22
44 12 16 6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 4.2.21: Showing the frequency distribution of Customer Goodwill
Of the respondents 22% strongly agreed that customer goodwill is necessary for considering for providing a loan, 44% agreed, 12% are neutral about the support, 16% disagreed with the assistance and 6% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees agreed that customer goodwill is necessary for considering for providing a loan. It maybe because they believe that their kindness will allow them to recapture their money.
Table 4.2.22: Customers Properties Value
Valid
3 6 6 24 11 50
6.0 12.0 12.0 48.0 22.0 100.0
6.0 12.0 12.0 48.0 22.0 100.0
6.0 18.0 30.0 78.0 100.0
50 40 30 20 10 6 12 22 48
0 strongly Disagree
12
Disagree
Neutral
Figure 4.2.22: Showing the frequency distribution of Customers Properties Value
Of the respondents 22% strongly agreed that Customers Properties Value help them to consider effectively by saving time & minimizing errors, 48% agreed, 12% are neutral about the
performing effectively by saving time, 12% disagreed with the effective performance and 6% strongly disagreed. From the graph, it can be seen that Customers Properties Value help the employees perform effectively by saving time and minimizing errors. It may be because the employees think that it saves their time.
Table 4.2.23: Customer Income

Valid
4 4 10 20 12 50
8.0 8.0 20.0 40.0 24.0 100.0
8.0 8.0 20.0 40.0 24.0 100.0
8.0 16.0 36.0 76.0 100.0
strongly agree agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree 0 5 8 10 15 20 8 20
24 40
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 4.2.23: Showing the frequency distribution of Customer Income
Of the respondents 24% strongly agreed that customer income is efficient for consideration, 40% agreed, 20% are neutral about it, 8% disagreed with it and 8% strongly disagreed.
The graph shows that majority of the employees think positive about customer income.. Since the work perform by employees are centralized they are reluctant to waste more time on making a formal proposal to the management. Table 4.2.24: Customers Loan Purpose
6 19 13 10 2 50
12.0 38.0 26.0 20.0 4.0 100.0
12.0 38.0 26.0 20.0 4.0 100.0
12.0 50.0 76.0 96.0 100.0
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree 12
38
26 20
Disagree
Neutral
agree
strongly agree
Figure 4.2.24: Showing the frequency distribution of Customers Loan Purpose
Of the respondents 4% strongly agreed that customers loan purpose increases employees anxiety, 20% agreed, 26% are neutral about the ability to do the work independently, 38% disagreed with the independence of the work in the current system and 12% strongly disagreed.
From the chart it can be seen that majority employees doesnt have the ability to do the work independently. This shows that the existing loan procedure system doesnt empower the employees to do the work on their own. Hence, the department works on a centralized method.
Table 4.2.25: Significance of Profitability
2 5 10 26 7 50
4.0 10.0 20.0 52.0 14.0 100.0
4.0 10.0 20.0 52.0 14.0 100.0
4.0 14.0 34.0 86.0 100.0
60 50 40 30 20 10 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 20 14 52
Figure 4.2.25: Showing the frequency distribution of Significance of Profitability
Of the respondents 14% strongly agreed that profitability holds more significance for the bank, 52% agreed, 20% are neutral about the profitability issue, 10% disagreed that profitability is the main concern and 4% strongly disagreed.
Majority of the employees agreed that profitability holds more significance. Employees believe that profitability can help them to achieve their goal. Table 4.2.26: Significance of Liquidity
3 7 9 22 9 50
6.0 14.0 18.0 44.0 18.0 100.0
6.0 14.0 18.0 44.0 18.0 100.0
6.0 20.0 38.0 82.0 100.0
18
14 strongly Disagree 18 Disagree Neutral
44
Figure 4.2.26: Showing the frequency distribution of Significance of Liquidity
Of the respondents 18% strongly agreed that liquidity holds more significance for the bank to perform effectively by saving time, 44% agreed, 18% are neutral about the effective performance by saving time, 14% disagreed that profitability holds more significance than liquidity and 5% strongly disagreed.
Most of the employees agreed that liquidity carries more importance and helps to perform effectively by saving time. It allows banks to have more freedom to do their work as there is no dependence on others.
4.3 Cross tabulation Analysis

Table 4.3.1: Cross tabulation of Gender & Lenders Potential
Count Satisfied with the Lenders Potential strongly Disagree Gender Total Male Female 7 2 9 Disagree 26 12 38 Neutral 21 7 28 agree 11 4 15 strongly agree 7 3 10 72 28 100 Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 36% respondents of Male and 42.8% female which mean 26 Male employees out of 72 and 12 Female employees out of 28 are disagree with the existing trustworthy system in BASIC Bank Limited. Overall 38 respondents out of 100 are not satisfied with the existing system.
Table 4.3.2: Cross tabulation of Age & Lenders Asset and Liability Worth Count Lenders Asset and Liability plays a vital role strongly Disagree Age 25-30 35-40 31-35 40 & above Total 3 2 0 0 5 Disagree 5 2 0 2 9 Neutral 3 4 2 3 12 agree 18 23 7 3 51 strongly agree 9 6 6 2 23 38 37 15 10 100 Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 47% respondents of 25-30 age group, 46% of respondent age group 31-35, 62% of respondent from age group 35-40 and 30% respondent of 40 & above age group agree with the Asset and Liability practice in BASIC bank. In total 51 employees out of 100, think that existing method of BASIC bank decrease overall efficiency.
Table 4.3.3: Cross tabulation of Education & Profitability
Count
Profitability
strongly Disagree Education science commerce Arts vocational others Total 0 0 1 0 0 1 Disagree 4 4 4 0 1 13 Neutral 3 2 3 1 1 10 agree 11 9 16 5 1 42 strongly agree 11 12 7 4 0 34
Total
29 27 31 10 3 100
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 37% respondents of science, 33% of respondent commerce, 50% of respondent from Arts group, and 50% respondent of vocational group are agree that the existing system can be improved in BASIC bank. In total 42 employees out of 100, think that existing method of BASIC Bank can be improved.
Table 4.3.4: Cross tabulation of Education & Customer Goodwill Count strongly Disagree 1 2 1 1 1 6 Customer Goodwill Disagree Neutral agree 8 8 19 1 4 0 1 2 6 3 7 7 2 1 8 15 22 40 Total strongly agree 8 3 0 4 2 17 44 10 10 22 14 100
Age Range of the respondents
Science Commerce Arts Vocational Others
Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, age range of 43% respondents of science, 60% of respondents of commerce, 30% of respondent from arts, and 50% respondent of vocational are agree with the customers goodwill that are essential to maximize the use of profitability of BASIC Bank. In total 40 employees out of 100, think that goodwill are essential to maximize the profit.
Table 4.3.5: Cross tabulation of Gender & New Loans in new industry Count New Loans in new industry strongly Disagree Gender Total Male Female 5 1 6 7 4 11 8 4 12 36 8 44 16 11 27 72 28 100 Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 50% respondents of Male and 33.33% female which mean 26 Male employees out of 72 and 12 Female employees out of 28 are disagree that the new loans should be sanctioned for new industry in BASIC Bank. Overall 44 respondents out of 100 are thinking that new loans should be made available to increase the efficiency of BASIC Bank.
Table 4.3.6: Cross tabulation of Age & Customer Income Count strongly Disagree Age 25-30 35-40 31-35 40 & above Total 6 15 12 45 22 100 2 4 0 0 4 7 2 2 1 9 1 1 18 13 8 6 Customer Income Disagree Neutral agree Total strongly agree 13 4 4 1 38 37 15 10
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 47.36% respondents of 25-30 age group, 53% of respondent age group 31-35, 35% of respondent from age group 35-40 and 60% respondent of 40 & above age group are agree customer income is necessity to sanction loan in BASIC Bank. In total 45 employees out of 100, think that Customer income is needed to take under consideration in BASIC Bank.
Table 4.3.7: Cross tabulation of Age & Customer Loan Purpose Count
Customer Loan Purpose

Age strongly Disagree 4 6 0 2 12 Disagree 14 12 10 2 38 Neutral 8 13 2 3 26 agree 8 6 3 2 19 strongly agree 4 0 0 1 5
Total
25-30 35-40 31-35 40 & above
38 37 15 10 100
Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 36.84% respondents of 25-30 age group, 66.66% of respondent age group 31-35, 32% of respondent from age group 35-40, But only 20%
respondent of 40 & above age group are disagree with Existing loan system gives the ability to do work independently in BASIC Bank. In total 38 employees out of 100, think that existing structure gives the ability to do work independently in BASIC Bank. It means Existing management does not give the ability to do work independently. Table 4.3.8: Cross tabulation of Age & Customers Properties Values Count Customers Properties Values Age
25-30 35-40 31-35 40 & above strongly Disagree 0 3 0 1 4 Disagree 3 2 5 1 11 Neutral 6 9 2 2 19 agree 23 17 6 5 51 strongly agree 6 6 2 1 15 Total
Total
38 37 15 10 100
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 60% respondents of 25-30 age group, 40% of respondent age group 31-35, 43% of respondent from age group 35-40 and only 50% respondent of 40 & above age group are agree with Customers Properties Values. In total 51 employees out of 100, think that Customers Properties Values helps employees reconsider and work independently in BASIC bank.
Table 4.3.9: Cross tabulation of Age & Liquidity Count Liquidity Age
25-30 35-40 31-35 40 & above strongly Disagree 3 2 0 0 5 Disagree 7 2 0 1 10 Neutral 4 8 2 0 14 agree 15 18 8 5 46 strongly agree 9 7 5 4 25 Total 38 37 15 10 100
Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 39% respondents of 25-30 age group, 52% of respondent age group 31-35, 48% of respondent from age group 35-40 and only 50% respondent of 40 & above age group are agree with liquidity is more important. Overall 46 employees out of 100, think that Efficiency of bank can be improved if it has high liquidity in BASIC bank.
Table 4.3.10: Cross tabulation of Lenders Potential & Timely Repayment Count Timely Repayment
strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 9 2 11 8 4 12 35 7 42 27 3 30 82 18 100 Total
Lenders Potential
Total
Yes No
3 2 5
82% of respondent who believe that lenders potential can improve customer efficiency where 67% of them are agree and 32% of them are strongly agree with efficiency is better when lenders repay timely. On the other hand 18 respondents out of 100 are believed that timely repayment doesnt necessarily mean that it has huge potential.
Table 4.3.11: Cross tabulation of Credit Procedure & Profitability Count Profitability
strongly Disagree Neutral agree strongly
Total
Credit Procedure
Total
Yes No
Disagree 5 0 5
7 2 9
7 1 8
41 7 48
agree 22 8 30
82 18 100
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 50% respondents agree with credit procedure is perfect to boost employees efficiency. Overall 82 employees out of 100 believe that credit procedure boost employees efficiency in BASIC Bank and 18 respondents believe that credit procedure hampering employees efficiency.
Table 4.3.12: Cross tabulation of Education & Customer Income Count Customer Income
Education strongly Disagree 3 1 2 0 0 6 Disagree 1 1 2 0 1 5 Neutral 1 1 4 1 0 7 agree 13 14 11 5 2 45 strongly agree 11 10 12 4 0 37 29 27 31 10 3 100
Total
science commerc e Arts vocational others
Total
From the above cross tabulation analysis, 44% respondents of science, 52% of respondent commerce, 35% of respondent from Arts group, and 50% respondent of vocational group and 2 respondent of others educational background are agree with greater Customers Income speed up the loan process. In total 45 employees out of 100, think that Education helps to enhance overall employees efficiency in BASIC Bank.
4.4 Chi-Square Analysis

4.4.a Chi-square test between Responsiveness performed by respondent and believes that using it is related with customer satisfaction.
H0: Responsiveness is not positively correlated with customer satisfaction H1: Responsiveness is positively correlated with customer satisfaction
TABLE 4.4.1: Chi-Square Tests between responsiveness performed by respondent and customer
satisfaction
Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association Value 13.086a 13.242 3.151 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .011 .010 .076
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.80.
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.05. Therefore null hypothesis should be rejected. So it can be stated that Responsiveness is positively correlated with customer satisfaction.
4.4.b Chi-square test of Age and necessity of IT training
H0: Age and Lenders Potential are independent H1: Age and Lenders Potential are dependent
TABLE 4.4.2: Chi-square test of Age and Lenders Potential

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association Value 22.142a 24.449 .147 df 12 12 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .036 .018 .701
a. 15 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .60.
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.05. Therefore null hypothesis should be rejected. So it can be stated that Age and Lenders Potential are independent.
4.4.c Chi-square test of Age and Employee empowerment is needed to improve performance H0: Age and Supervision is needed to improve performance are independent H1: Age and Supervision is needed to improve performance are dependent
Table 4.4.3: Chi-Square tests Age and Supervision is needed to improve performance
Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association 29.104a 30.514 .036 df 12 12 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .004 .002 .850
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.04. Therefore null hypothesis should be rejected. So it can be stated that Age and Supervision is needed to improve performance are independent.
4.4.d: Independent test of Education and Credit Procedure helps empower employees
H0: Education and Credit Procedure helps empower employees are independent H1: Education and using advance IT helps empower employees are dependent
TABLE 4.4.4: Chi-Square Tests Education and Credit Procedure helps empower employees
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association
35.235a 35.566 2.512
16 16 1
.004 .003 .113
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.04. Therefore null hypothesis should be rejected. So it can be stated Education and Credit Procedure helps empower employees are independent.
4.4.e Independent test of Education and Monitoring decrease overall efficiency
H0: Education and Monitoring decrease overall efficiency is independent H1: Education and Monitoring decrease overall efficiency is dependent
TABLE 4.4.5: Chi-Square Tests Education and Monitoring decrease overall efficiency
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association
54.447a 42.840 3.090
16 16 1
.000 .000 .079
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.00. Therefore null hypothesis should be rejected. So it can be stated that Education and Monitoring decrease overall efficiency are independent.
4.4f Independent test between Gender and an Advance IT system is needed to enhance skills
H0: Gender and Supervision is needed to stop defaulters are independent H1: Gender and Supervision is needed to stop defaulters are dependent
TABLE 4.4.6: Chi-Square Tests Gender and Supervision is needed to stop defaulters Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association 8.861a 9.375 2.119 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .065 .052 .145
Decision: the significance level is lower than 0.065. Therefore null hypothesis should be accepted. So it can be stated that Gender and Supervision is needed to stop defaulters are dependent.
4.5 Table: Correlations between the variables

Correlations
Lenders Trustworthy
Pearson
Assurance .203*
Requirement -.002
Consideration .213*
Signifance .567**
IT System
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.043 .203* .043 -.002 .986 .213* .033 .567** .001 .990 .295** .003 .520** 1
.986 .001 .990 1
.033 .295** .003 .067 .508
.000 .520** .010 .247*

.013
IT Skills
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
IT Training
Empowerment
.067 .508 .247*
.723** .000
Efficiency
.723**
.000
.010
.013
.000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation Test
Correlation analysis measures the relationship between two continuous numeric variables that indicates both the direction and degree to which they co-vary with one another from case to case, without implying that one is causing the other. The significance of each correlation coefficient is displayed in the correlation Table 1. The significance level (or p-value) is the probability of obtaining results as extreme as the one observed. If the significance level is very small (less than 0.05) then the correlation is significant and the two variables are linearly related. If the significance level is relatively large (for example, 0.50) then the correlation is not significant, hence the two variables are not linearly related. 4.5.a Lenders trustworthy and reliability: The hypothesis for the test is given below. H0= Lenders trustworthy and the reliability on the employees are correlated H1= Lenders trustworthy and the reliability on the employees are not correlated
TABLE 4.5.1: Correlation between Lenders trustworthy and reliability

IT System Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Efficiency Pearson Correlation .567
**
IT System 1
Efficiency .567** .000 1
.000 Sig. (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Decision: This is the correlation between Lenders trustworthy and reliability. At the 99% confidence interval there is a correlation between reliability and trustworthy, the correlation value is .567 which shows that there is a strong positive relationship between Lenders trustworthy and reliability. So, we accept the null hypothesis. 4.5.b Assurance and reliability: The hypothesis for the test is given below H0: Assurance and reliability on the employees are correlated H1: Assurance and reliability on the employees are not correlated
TABLE 4.5.2: Correlation between Assurance and reliability on the employees
IT Skills IT Skills Efficiency Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation
1
**
Efficiency
.520** .010
.520
.010 Sig. (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Decision: At the 99% confidence, there is a correlation between Assurance and reliability. The correlation value is .520 which shows that there is a strong positive relationship between Assurance and reliability. Hence, the reliability of the employees can improve if the assurance of the employees is enhanced. So, we accept the null hypothesis. 4.5.c Requirement of Credit Analysis and reliability: H0: Requirement of Credit Analysis and reliability on the employees are correlated H1: Requirement of Credit Analysis and reliability on the employees are not correlated
Table 4.5.3: Correlation between Requirement of Credit Analysis and reliability on the employees
IT Training IT Training Efficiency Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .247
*
Efficiency .247* .013 1
.013
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Decision: At the 99% confidence interval there is a correlation between Requirement of Credit Analysis and reliability, the correlation value is .247 which shows Requirement of Credit Analysis has a positive but a weak relationship with the reliability of the employees. Therefore, the reliability on the employees will not enhance that significantly if BASIC Bank implements required credit analysis. 4.5.d Consideration and reliability: H0: Consideration and reliability on the employees are correlated H1: Consideration and reliability on the employees are correlated
TABLE 4.5.4: Correlation between Consideration and reliability on the employees Empowerment Efficiency
Empowerment
.723** .000
Efficiency
.723** .000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Decision: At the 99% confidence interval there is a correlation between Consideration and reliability on the employees. The correlation value is .723 which shows that the Consideration of the employees has a strong positive relationship with the reliability on the employees. Therefore, if BASIC Bank give more authority to their employees then their efficiency will improve.
4.6 One Sample t-Test

4.6.a Test of mean for Lenders Trustworthy:
In the one sample t- test the actual mean of the variable, Lenders Trustworthy is tested against a mean of 3.58 whereas the actual mean is 3.67. The Hypotheses of the test will be H0: = 3.58 or the mean value of Lenders Trustworthy is 3.58 H1: 3.58 or the mean value of Lenders Trustworthy is not 3.58
Table 4.6.1: One-Sample Test for Lenders Trustworthy

Test Value = 3.58 95% Confidence Interval of t df Sig. (2tailed) MEAN of Lenders Trustworthy 2.063 99 .042 Mean Difference .09143 the Difference Lower .0035 Upper .1794
From the above table we can see that the P value is 0.042, which is less than 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that at 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis is rejected and the Lenders Trustworthy mean value 3.58 is rejected against the actual mean of 3.67.
4.6.b Test of mean for Assurance: In the one sample t- test the actual mean of the variable, Assurance is tested against a mean of 3.38 whereas the actual mean is 3.52. The Hypotheses of the test will be H0: = 3.38 or the mean value of Assurance is 3.38 H1: 3.38 or the mean value of Assurance is not 3.38
Table 4.6.2: One-Sample Test for Assurance

Test Value = 3.38
95% Confidence Interval of t df Sig. (2tailed) Mean the Difference Difference Lower MEAN of Assurance 2.607 99 .011 .13833 .0330 Upper .2436
From the above table we can see that the P value is 0.011, which is less than 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that at 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis is rejected and the Assurance mean value 3.38 is rejected against the actual mean of 3.52.
4.6.c Test of mean for Requirement of Credit Analysis: In the one sample t- test the actual mean of the variable, Requirement of Credit Analysis is tested against a mean of 3.48 whereas, the actual mean is 3.65. The Hypotheses of the test will be H0: = 3.48 or the mean value of Requirement of Credit Analysis is 3.48 H1: 3.48 or the mean value of Requirement of Credit Analysis is not 3.48
Table 4.6.3: One-Sample Test for Requirement of Credit Analysis

Test Value = 3.48 95% Confidence Interval of t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower MEAN of Requirement of Credit Analysis 2.557 99 .012 .16800 .0376 .2984 Upper the Difference
From the above table we can see that the P value is 0.012, which is less than 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that at 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis is rejected and the Requirement of Credit Analysis mean value 3.48 is rejected against the actual mean of 3.65.
4.6.d Test of mean for Consideration: In the one sample t- test the actual mean of the variable, Consideration is tested against a mean of 3.28 whereas, the actual mean is 3.44. The Hypotheses of the test will be H0: = 3.28 or the mean value of Consideration is 3.28 H1: 3.28 or the mean value of Consideration is not 3.28
Table 4.6.4: One-Sample Test for Consideration

Test Value = 3.28 95% Confidence Interval of t df Sig. (2tailed) Mean Difference the Difference Lower .0461 Upper .2819
MEAN of Consideration
2.761
99
.007
.16400
From the above table we can see that the P value is 0.007, which is less than 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that at 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis is rejected and the consideration mean value 3.28 is rejected against the actual mean of 3.44.
4.6.e Test of mean for Significance: In the one sample t- test the actual mean of the variable, Efficiency is tested against a mean of 3.68 whereas, the actual mean is 3.83. The Hypotheses of the test will be
H0: = 3.68 or the mean value of Significance is 3.68 H1: 3.68 or the mean value of Significance is not 3.68
Table 4.6.5: One-Sample Test for Significance

Test Value = 3.68 t df Sig. (2tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower MEAN of Significance 2.927 99 .004 .15333 .0494 Upper .2573
From the above table we can see that the P value is 0.004, which is less than 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that at 95% confidence interval the null hypothesis is rejected and the significance mean value 3.68 is rejected against the actual mean of 3.83.
4.7 Regression Model

Regression model was used to formulate a model that explains how 4 independent variables, Lenders Trustworthy, Assurance, Requirement of Credit Analysis and Significance the employee reliability which is the only dependent variable of this research. In other words, the model was formulated to understand how employee performance is affected because of all independent variable together. Following output was generated after conducting multiple regressions in SPSS.
The regression model to predict employee performance is:
Y = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2 + 3X3 + 4X4 I

From the above model:
Dependent variable Y= Overall reliability on Employees.
0= Intercept I = Error The independent variables are as follows: X1 = Lenders Trustworthy X2 = Assurance X3 = Requirement of Credit Analysis X4 = Significance
Model Summary
Model 1
a. Predictors:
R .758a
R Square .575
Adjusted R Square .558
Std. Error of the Estimate .56783
(Constant), Lenders Trustworthy, Assurance, Requirement of Credit Analysis,
Significance Model summary above shows that correlation, r = .758. That means employee efficiency is strongly correlated with Lenders Trustworthy, Assurance, Requirement of Credit Analysis and Significance. Coefficient of determination or the R-Square value is 0.575. That means only 57.5% changes in the employee efficiency can be explained by this model. Value of adjusted RSquare is 0.558 indicates only 55.8% variation in performance can be measured by this model after considering all related factors. Now we can test the model as well by regression. The hypothesis that could be tested-
Ho: Model Test is not adequate H1: Model Test is adequate ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 17.962 6 2.994 39.906 .000a Residual 6.977 93 . 075 Total 24.939 99 a. Predictors: (Constant), Lenders Trustworthy, Assurance, Requirement of Credit Analysis, Significance
b. Dependent Variable: Reliability
From the Anova table we can see that the P value which in this case is the significant value is .000 which is less than .05 (.000< .05) therefore we will reject the null hypothesis which is the model is not adequate and we will accept the alternative hypothesis which is the model is adequate. H0: i= 0 Independent variables have no impact on dependent variables. H1: i 0 Independent Variables have impact on dependent variables.
Coefficients Model Non-standardized Coefficients B 2.227 .257 .267 .193 .648 Std. Error .681 .088 .267 .078 .090 Standardized Coefficients Beta 3.270 .250 .206 .242 .595 2.931 1.594 2.460 7.184 .001 .004 .005 .016 .020 t Sig.
(Constant) Lenders Trustworthy Assurance Requirement Significance
a. Dependent Variable: Efficiency
After inserting the values of constant and related beta of all variables, the linear regressions model is
Reliability = 2.227 + 0.250 (Lenders Trustworthy) + 0.206 (Assurance) + 0.242 (Requirement) + 0.595 (Significance)
From the output value we can conclude that the P which in this case is the significant value of the t test for the variable. We can see for Lenders Trustworthy the null hypothesis is rejected which is, H0: i= 0 therefore we will accept the alternative hypothesis that is H1: i 0.The coefficient 0.250 of compensation will have a significant effect on the dependent variable i.e. overall reliability.
From the output value we can conclude that the P which in this case is the significant value of the t test for the variable. We can see for Assurance the null hypothesis is rejected which is, H0: i= 0 therefore we will accept the alternative hypothesis that is H1: i 0.The coefficient 0.206 of compensation will have a significant effect on the dependent variable i.e. overall reliability. From the output value we can conclude that the P which in this case is the significant value of the t test for the variable. We can see for Requirement the null hypothesis is rejected which is, H0: i= 0 therefore we will accept the alternative hypothesis that is H1: i 0.The coefficient 0.242 of compensation will have a significant effect on the dependent variable i.e. overall reliability. From the output we can conclude that the P which in this case is the significant value of the t test for the variable. We can see for Significance the null hypothesis is rejected which is, H0: i= 0 therefore we will accept the alternative hypothesis that is H1: i 0.The coefficient 0.595 of compensation will have a significant effect on the dependent variable i.e. overall reliability.
4.8 RELIABILITY TEST

In statistics, reliability is the consistency of a set of measurements or of a measuring instrument, often used to describe a test. In the survey of this report, a set of 5 questions was asked to measure each variable. Here, reliability test is performed in order to check the consistency in the each set of questions. In SPSS, reliability is measured through Cronbachs alpha. Cronbach's (alpha) is a coefficient of reliability. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees. Alpha varies from zero to 1 and it can take any value less than or equal to 1, including negative values, although only positive values make sense. Higher values of alpha are more desirable as it represents higher reliability. In most cases, alpha value is needed to be higher than 0.7 to be considered as reliable.
Reliability Test on Lenders Trustworthy

TABLE 4.8.1: Result of reliability test on Lenders Trustworthy
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .727 N of Items 5
The table above shows that Cronbachs alpha is positive and higher than 0.7. Therefore the questionnaire set measuring the effectiveness of Lenders Trustworthy is acceptable and internally consistent. This also means that the questions for this variable were objective, accurate and positive.
A set of five questions was asked to measure the effectiveness of Lenders Trustworthy. After performing reliability test on these 5 questions, following SPSS output was generated.
Reliability Test on Assurance

A set of five questions was asked to measure the effectiveness of Assurance. After performing reliability test on these five questions, following SPSS output was generated.
TABLE 4.8.2: Result of reliability test on Assurance Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items .674 5
The table above shows that Cronbachs alpha is positive but it is lower than than 0.7. Therefore the questionnaire set measuring the effectiveness of Assurance is not internally consistent and hence it is not acceptable. Therefore data reduction by conducting Factor analysis on this questionnaire set is important in order to increase the internal consistency. Factor analysis of this questionnaire is shown in the next section.
Reliability Test on Requirement

A set of five questions was asked to measure the importance of Requirement. After performing reliability test on these 5 questions, following SPSS output was generated.
TABLE 4.8.3: Result of reliability test on Requirement

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 5
.809
The table above shows that Cronbachs alpha is positive and higher than 0.7. Therefore the questionnaire set measuring the importance of Requirement is acceptable and internally consistent. This also means that the questions for this variable were objective, accurate and positive.
Reliability Test on Significance

A set of five questions was asked to measure the importance of Significance. After performing reliability test on these 5 questions, following SPSS output was generated.
TABLE 18: Result of reliability test on Significance
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 5
.737
The table above shows that Cronbachs alpha is positive and higher than 0.7. Therefore the questionnaire set measuring the importance of Significance is acceptable and internally consistent. This also means that the questions for this variable were objective, accurate and positive.
Reliability Test on Reliability

A set of five questions was asked to measure the degree of reliability on employee performance enhancement. After performing reliability test on these 5 questions, following SPSS output was generated.
TABLE 19: Result of reliability test on Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .775 N of Items 5
The table above shows that Cronbachs alpha is positive and higher than 0.7. Therefore the questionnaire set measuring the degree of reliability on employee performance increase is acceptable and internally consistent. This also means that the questions for this variable were objective, accurate and positive.
4.9. FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors. The observed variables are modeled as linear combinations of the potential factors, plus error terms. The information gained about the interdependencies between observed variables can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset (Factor analysis, 2011).
Cronbach's Alpha
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Lenders Trustworthy Assurance Requirement Cronbach's Alpha Significance Reliability
Figure 4.9.1: Comparison of Cronbach's alpha Through the reliability test it was found that the alpha value of all variables were positive and higher than 0.7 except for Assurance. Following table shows the alpha range for each variable.
TABLE 4.9.2: Range of Cronbach's Alpha 0.00 - 0.69 Independent Variable IT System IT Skill IT Training Empowerment Dependent Variable Efficiency 0.775 The table shows that Cronbachs alpha for Assurance is lower than 0.7 which means the questions asked to measure the variable does not have internal consistency. Hence factor analysis is important in order to deduct the question which is causing higher variation or inconsistency in 0.674 0.809 0.737 0.727 0.70 - 0.89
the question set. If the questions or factors with high variation are deducted, question set will become more consistent and therefore will be more reliable. After conducting factor analysis on Assurance, following SPSS output was generated.
TABLE 21: Variance in Assurance
Total Variance Explained Comp onent Total 1 2 3 4 5 2.346 .975 .664 .587 .428 % of Variance 46.930 19.491 13.278 11.743 8,559 Cumulative % 46.930 66.420 79.698 91.441 100.000 Total 2.346 % of Variance 46.930 Cumulative % 46.930 Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The table above shows that first component or the answers of first questions have highest percentage of variance. That means answers of first question are causing inconsistency in the question set. It is possible to get rid of 47% variance if the first question is deducted. After deducting the first question, reliability test on the Assurance generates following SPSS output.
4.10 NORMAL PROBABILITY PLOT

The probability-probability (P-P) plot is a graph of the empirical CDF values plotted against the theoretical CDF values. It is used to determine how well a specific distribution fits to the observed data. This plot will be approximately linear if the specified theoretical distribution is the correct model. PP plot for Lenders Trustworthy
Figure 4.8.1: PP Plot for Lenders Trustworthy The PP plot shows an approximate liner curve. Therefore the specified theoretical distribution is the correct model.
PP plot for Assurance
Figure 4.8.2: PP Plot for Assurance Here the PP plot shows an approximate liner curve. Therefore the specified theoretical distribution is the correct model.
PP plot for Requirement
Figure 4.8.3: PP Plot for Requirement
Here the PP plot shows an approximate liner curve. Therefore the specified theoretical distribution is the correct model.
PP plot for Significance
Figure 4.8.4: PP Plot for Significance
PP plot for Reliability
Figure 4.8.5: PP Plot for Reliability


8 Stat

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8 Stat

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

4.1.

Std. Deviation .44323

4.2. Frequency distribution and charts

Table4.2.1: Gender of the respondents

Percent 72.0 28.0 100.0

Valid Percent 72.0 28.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 72.0 100.0

Male Female Total

Figure 4.2.1: Diagram showing the frequency distribution of gender

Table 4.2.2: Respondents Age Distribution

31-35 40 & above Total

15.0 10.0 100.0

15.0 10.0 100.0

Table 4.2.3: Respondents Educational background

29.0 27.0 31.0 10.0 3.0

29.0 27.0 31.0 10.0 3.0

29.0 56.0 87.0 97.0 100.0

commerce Arts vocational others

Table 4.2.5: Lenders Potential

strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree

10.0 38.0 28.0 14.0 10.0

10.0 38.0 28.0 14.0 10.0

10.0 48.0 76.0 90.0 100.0

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree

Figure 4.2.5: Showing the frequency distribution of Lenders Potential

arent aware of the different method or software used in the job.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral

Figure 4.2.6: Showing the frequency distribution of Lenders Honesty

Table 4.2.7: Asset and Liability

strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree

6.0 8.0 12.0 52.0 22.0

6.0 8.0 12.0 52.0 22.0

6.0 14.0 26.0 78.0 100.0

Figure 4.2.7: Showing the frequency distribution of Asset and Liability

Table 4.2.8: Profitability

2.0 12.0 10.0 42.0 34.0 100.0

2.0 12.0 10.0 42.0 34.0 100.0

2.0 14.0 24.0 66.0 100.0

strongly Disagree, 1 strongly agree, 17

Figure 4.2.8: Showing the frequency distribution of Profitability

Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 44.0 26.0 100.0

Valid Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 44.0 26.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.0 12.0 30.0 74.0 100.0

strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree 8 18 26 44

Figure 4.2.9: Showing the frequency distribution of Timely Repayment

Table 4.2.10: Supervision

strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total

8.0 10.0 14.0 36.0 32.0 100.0

8.0 10.0 14.0 36.0 32.0 100.0

8.0 18.0 32.0 68.0 100.0

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral 8 10 14

Figure 4.2.10: Showing the frequency distribution of Supervision

Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 48.0 22.0 100.0

Valid Percent 4.0 8.0 18.0 48.0 22.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.0 12.0 30.0 78.0 100.0

strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral agree strongly agree Total

Figure 4.2.11: Showing the frequency distribution of Monitoring

Figure 4.2.12: Showing the frequency distribution of Credit Policy

agree strongly agree

Figure 4.2.13: Showing the frequency distribution of Credit Procedure

Percent 6.0 14.0 22.0 40.0 18.0 100.0