Correlation between efficiency parameters and sales value targets

8/13/2019 Correlation between efficiency parameters and sales value targets

1/38

Correlation between efficiency

parameters and sales value targetsName: Avishek Basu Mallick

Project: Driving Stockist Salesman Efficiency in a Non-MetroUrban Town

Project Mentor/Guide/Tutor: Hironmoy Sen/ DhimanBhattacharya/ Sayan Dev Banerjee

Location: Jamshedpur


2/38

Estimated Sales Value Targets

Secondary Sales Value TargetAs given

Efficiency of Coverage TargetAs given

Billing Efficiency Target20 outlets per visit

Lines Per Bill Target6

Focus Brand Target3 per month

Note: Whole Sale Data has not been taken intoaccount


3/38

Focus Brand Achievement


4/38

SSM Incentive Earned


5/38

Descriptive Statistics


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Sales Achieved 70 3825.86 1712662.48 515992.7673 406551.45896

Sales Target 47 100000.00 1250000.00 504474.7845 248384.36651

SSM Incentive 35 .00 2100.00 1175.7143 703.91462

Eco Target 47 70.00 270.00 194.3617 24.12596

Eco Achieved 70 3.00 294.00 133.9429 66.51901

Billing Efficiency 70 .12 20.77 10.9664 5.82382

Lines Per Bill 70 2.33 11.25 5.6985 1.53073

Focus Brand Achievement 35 .00 3.00 1.2571 .98048

Sales Achievement % 54 .03 4.16 1.1461 .87069

Eco % 54 .04 1.25 .6861 .29529

Valid N (listwise) 31


6/38

Sales Report

Report

Mean

SSM

Sales Achievement

% Eco % Billing Efficiency Lines Per Bill

Focus Brand

Achievement SSM Incentive Sales Achieved Eco Achieved Sales Target Eco Target

Dabloo 1.1978 .9750 16.4444 4.4955 .0000 1600.0000 718709.5100 195.0000 600000.0000 200.0000

Mukesh Kumar 2.1033 .9895 13.7540 5.5883 1.7500 1900.0000 816811.8350 167.6667 462000.0000 195.4000

Raj Kumar .8212 .5737 10.1830 5.3050 .6667 983.3333 376537.7933 128.8333 360000.0000 174.2000

Rajeev Ranjan .9833 .6767 13.2186 4.4545 1.0000 900.0000 530834.5467 134.6667 608333.3333 196.8333

Rohit Verma 1.5785 .8021 15.2077 6.0914 2.0000 1350.0000 487080.4650 156.6667 490000.0000 190.0000

Sanjay Kumar Singh .1515 .3942 3.2941 5.3319 1.5000 375.0000 43423.3950 83.5000 275000.0000 212.5000

Sanjay Sahoo .0349 .0842 11.2782 4.4229 180080.5600 137.6667 450000.0000 190.0000

Santosh Kr. Sahoo .9899 .5171 10.2305 5.7642 507614.8800 98.2500 535000.0000 190.0000

Santosh Kumar .6294 .3028 5.3285 5.3393 .3333 83.3333 115667.7775 55.2500 233333.3333 191.6667

Rajeev Ranjan SO 3.9665 5.2750 90783.9550 39.0000

Abhishek Pandey 1.0263 .7421 13.4455 5.7144 1.7500 1212.5000 947011.0000 178.0000 910000.0000 204.2000

Krishna Sharma .3364 .3773 6.9629 4.0630 .0000 .0000 120208.5767 131.3333

Santosh Agarwal .7720 .7028 13.4363 6.5648 1.6667 1683.3333 949970.2233 153.3333

Shiv Shankar 1.8307 1.0974 12.5926 5.7912 2.0000 2100.0000 732278.2800 214.0000 400000.0000 195.0000

Somnath Bose 1.3692 .9935 15.1362 6.2526 1.8000 1540.0000 658311.6867 198.5000 528385.8117 203.3333

Rohit Bihari 1.7531 8.3664 47428.9500 42.5000

Gorakh Pandey 11.5556 4.8558 449527.5600 185.0000

Sanjay Verma 2.1274 .4333 5.9486 8.5205 .0000 1000.0000 560264.8367 82.3333 313333.3333 190.0000

Total 1.1461 .6861 10.9664 5.6985 1.2571 1175.7143 515992.7673 133.9429 504474.7845 194.3617


7/38

Correlation Matrix

Correlation Matrix

Sales

Achievement

% Eco %

Billing

Efficiency Lines Per Bill

Focus Brand

Achievement SSM Incentive Sales Achieved Eco Achieved Sales Target Eco Target

Correlation Sales Achievement % 1.000 .181 .185 .463 -.069 .534 .610 .093 -.225 -.356

Eco % .181 1.000 .829 -.190 .420 .735 .393 .972 .429 .044

Billing Efficienc y .185 .829 1.000 -.338 .334 .690 .529 .804 .494 .007

Lines Per Bill .463 -.190 -.338 1.000 -.220 .040 .221 - .266 -.183 -.381

Focus Brand Achievement -.069 .420 .334 -.220 1.000 .487 .217 .475 .417 .342

SSM Incentive .534 .735 .690 .040 .487 1.000 .697 .672 .322 -.140

Sales Achieved .610 .393 .529 .221 .217 .697 1.000 .307 .472 -.307

Eco Achieved .093 .972 .804 -.266 .475 .672 .307 1.000 .448 .273

Sales Target -.225 .429 .494 -.183 .417 .322 .472 .448 1.000 .090

Eco Target -.356 .044 .007 -.381 .342 -.140 -.307 .273 .090 1.000


8/38

Correlation Matrix

From the correlation matrix we can see that

there is a high degree of correlation between

certain parameters e.g. Sales Achievement %

and Eco (Achieved) % have a correlation of

0.972

Therefore to avoid multicollinearity, we can

reduce the number of parameters to twofactors.


9/38

Total Variance

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 4.397 43.968 43.968 4.397 43.968 43.968 4.352 43.520 43.5202 2.382 23.815 67.783 2.382 23.815 67.783 2.426 24.263 67.783

3 .941 9.413 77.196

4 .876 8.761 85.957

5 .561 5.609 91.566

6 .492 4.920 96.486

7 .137 1.371 97.857

8 .132 1.319 99.176

9 .082 .817 99.993

10 .001 .007 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


10/38

Scree Plot


11/38

Correlation between the factors

Correlations

REGR factor score 1

for analysis 1

REGR factor score 2

for analysis 1

REGR factor score 1 for analysis 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .000

Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000

N 31 31

REGR factor score 2 for analysis 1 Pearson Correlation .000 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000

N 31 31


12/38

Rotated Component Matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2

Eco Achieved .914 -.112

Eco % .910 .051

Billing Efficiency .888 .065

SSM Incentive .811 .441

Sales Target .627 -.155

Focus Brand Achievement .619 -.250

Sales Achievement % .167 .853

Eco Target .161 -.704

Lines Per Bill -.298 .696

Sales Achieved .567 .647

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.


13/38


14/38

Factor Analysis Report for SSM

Report

Mean

SSM

REGR factor score 1 for

analysis 1


analysis 1

Dabloo .5642911 -.0545938

Mukesh Kumar .7239003 .5711888

Raj Kumar -.5481093 .0434922

Rajeev Ranjan -.1202727 -.2391345

Rohit Verma .8693506 .0001899

Sanjay Kumar Singh -1.2097899 -1.1824730

Santosh Kumar -1.5620407 -.4878199

Abhishek Pandey .5526075 -.3764095

Shiv Shankar .8205348 .4611703

Somnath Bose .6840081 -.0180271

Sanjay Verma -1.2092392 1.7792646

Total .0000000 .0000000


15/38

Factor Analysis Report for SSM


16/38

Descriptive Statistics for KANO Model


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Sales Achievement % 54 .03 4.16 1.1461 .87069

LPB Achievement 70 .39 1.88 .9498 .25506

Eco % 54 .04 1.25 .6861 .29529

BE Achievement 70 .01 1.04 .5484 .29117

FBA Achievement 35 .00 1.00 .4190 .32683

Valid N (listwise) 35


17/38

KANO Model


18/38

KANO Model Analysis

The KANO Model Analysis throws up some

interesting results

Sales Achievement is a minimum expected

parameter

Eco Achievement is a delight parameter i.e. the

parameter last focused on.


19/38

Performance Linkage Dendogram


20/38

Final Cluster Centers

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster

1 2 3

Sales Achievement % .92 1.81 1.31

Eco % .90 .74 .67

Billing Efficiency 15.23 13.77 10.19

Lines Per Bill 5.42 6.41 6.01

Focus Brand Achievement 1.33 1.67 1.16

SSM Incentive 1288.89 1616.67 1034.21

Sales Achieved 652037.03 1450833.37 450065.29

Eco Achieved 180.56 140.33 135.21

Sales Target 774479.43 883333.33 355263.16

Eco Target 200.22 190.33 201.42

BE Achievement .76 .69 .51

LPB Achievement .90 1.07 1.00

FBA Achievement .44 .56 .39


21/38

Cluster Cross Tabulation Agencywise

Cluster Number of Case * Agency Crosstabulation

Agency

TotalBalajee Manoj Singhania

Cluster Number of Case 1 Count 2 4 3 9

% within Cluster Number of

Case

22.2% 44.4% 33.3% 100.0%

2 Count 1 0 2 3


Case

33.3% .0% 66.7% 100.0%

3 Count 5 7 7 19


Case

26.3% 36.8% 36.8% 100.0%

Total Count 8 11 12 31


Case

25.8% 35.5% 38.7% 100.0%


22/38

Chi Square Tests for Agencywise Cross Tabulation

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.081a 4 .721

Likelihood Ratio 3.021 4 .554

N of Valid Cases 31

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .77.


23/38

Analysis

The cluster analysis gives us the following

results

Sales Achievement is high with a low Eco and

Billing Efficiency only when the Sales Target is low(as in Cluster 3)

For a very Sales Achievement as in Cluster 2, all

the parameters are required to be high For a long term target setting plan, Cluster 1 is

ideal as it scores equally on all respects


24/38

Analysis (continued)

The agency wise cross tabulation data does

not show any significant relation between

clusters and agency.

Hence we can assume that SSM performance

is independent of its parent agency.


25/38

SSM Incentive Correspondence Analysis

Correspondence Table

Incentive

SSM

Raj Kumar Rajeev Ranjan Santosh Kumar Krishna Sharma

Sanjay Kumar

Singh Abhishek Pandey Somnath Bose Sanjay Verma Rohit Verma Santosh Agarwal Mukesh Kumar Dabloo Shiv Shankar Active Margin

0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

1-500 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

501-1000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4

1001-1500 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 9

1501-2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 1 0 9

2000+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4

Active Margin 3 4 3 1 2 4 5 2 2 3 4 1 1 35


26/38

SSM Incentive Correspondence Analysis


27/38

Analysis

If we compare the correspondence analysis to

the earlier factor wise analysis we see that

Mukesh Kumar and Shiv Shankar have high Sales

Achievement and high SSM Incentives

Dabloo has a medium to high Sales Achievement

and high Eco leading to high SSM Incentive

Rohit Verma has a medium to high SalesAchievement and high Eco leading to a medium to

high SSM Incentive


28/38

Regression Analysis on actual figures

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -645.884 403.070 -1.602 .120

Focus Brand Achievement 196.484 79.059 .274 2.485 .019

Sales Achieved .001 .000 .418 2.742 .010

Eco Achieved 3.620 2.136 .297 1.695 .101

Billing Efficiency 20.780 28.151 .154 .738 .466

Lines Per Bill 53.593 55.821 .119 .960 .345

a. Dependent Variable: SSM Incentive

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .863a .745 .701 384.61672

a. Predictors: (Constant), Lines Per Bill, Focus Brand Achievement, Billing

Efficiency, Sales Achieved, Eco Achieved


29/38

Results

Despite a moderate to high R-squared value

(0.745), the correlation coefficients of the

target achievements in terms of actual figures

are not significant.

Therefore, we carry out a regression analysis

in terms of percentage wise achievements


30/38

Regression Analysis on percentages

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .897a .804 .771 337.11831

a. Predictors: (Constant), FBA Achievement, Sales Achievement %, BE

Achievement, LPB Achievement, Eco %

Coefficientsa

Model


Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) -849.638 312.974 -2.715 .011

Sales Achievement % 327.771 83.227 .381 3.938 .000

Eco % 653.721 371.302 .263 1.761 .089

BE Achievement 818.304 400.547 .304 2.043 .050

LPB Achievement 312.051 265.044 .115 1.177 .249

FBA Achievement 774.388 197.531 .360 3.920 .000



31/38


32/38

Regression analysis on factors

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .923a .852 .841 275.17754

a. Predictors: (Constant), REGR factor score 2 for analysis 1, REGR factor

score 1 for analysis 1

Coefficientsa

Model


Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 1164.516 49.423 23.562 .000


analysis 1

560.431 50.240 .811 11.155 .000


analysis 1

304.590 50.240 .441 6.063 .000



33/38

Results

The R-squared value is highest in this case and

the data is completely significant.

Therefore we can form the regression

equation as

Y = 560.431 (Factor 1) + 304.590 (Factor 2)

where Y = SSM Incentive

Factor 1,2 = Factors obtained from factor

wise analysis of efficiency parameters.


34/38

L3M Growth

SSM B.E. Growth S.A. Growth Eco Growth L.P.B GrowthAbhishek

Pandey 1.3223 .4059 2.1976 .8097Mukesh Kumar .6723 .3837 .7226 .7517Raj Kumar 6.1235 2.6535 2.8844 .7695Rajeev Ranjan 1.3422 .7311 1.5651 .7832Rajeev Ranjan

SO .8732 .7675 .9328 .9449

Rohit Bihari 20.9135 23.7939 20.2500 .4874Rohit Verma 1.3749 1.8535 1.3919 .8839Santosh

Agarwal .8042 .5114 1.0957 .5752Santosh Kr.

Sahoo .9166 .5224 .9300 .9849Santosh Kumar .6931 .5632 .9464 .8941Somnath Bose .8141 .8452 1.1005 .8671


35/38

Analysis

L3M Growth has been calculated as the

performance in one parameter from January

to March to the previous performance in the

same parameter from October to December.

Rohit Bihari joined late in December. That is

why his figures are abnormally high.

This is true to a lesser extent for Abhishek

Pandey and Raj Kumar


36/38


37/38

Overall Results and Analysis

There is a definite correlation between

efficiency parameters and sales value targets

and achievements.

This can be used to develop an implementable

model to drive SSM growth

Further analysis needs to be carried out on

the seasonal and periodic variations in SSM

performance.


38/38

Thank You!

Correlation between efficiency parameters and sales value targets

Documents

Transcript of Correlation between efficiency parameters and sales value targets