UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

UiTM CAWANGAN JOHOR, KAMPUS SEGAMAT

FACULTY BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

JBA252: BACHELOR OF DIGITAL MARKETING (HONS)

MGT 555: BUSINESS ANALYTICS

GROUP ASSIGNMENT (30%)

PREPARED BY:

NAME STUDENT ID CLASS

MUHAMMAD IRFAN BIN MOHD TAUFIK 2022484614 BA2523B

WAN MUHAMMAD ALIFSYAQIREEN BIN WAN AHMAD KAMAL 2022622442 BA2523B

TENGKU MUHAMMAD AIMAN BIN TENGKU AZMI 2022675264 BA2523B

SYIFA BINTI MOHAMMAD AZHARI 2022660764 BA2523B

ALIEYA ARIESSA BINTI MUHAMAD FIRDOUS 2022856564 BA2523B

PREPARED FOR:

DR. SUHAIDI BIN ELIAS @ ALIAS

SUBMITTED DATE:

18 JANUARY 2024
 TABLE OF CONTENT

QUESTION 1……………………………………………………………………1-7

QUESTION 2……………………………………………………………………8-10

QUESTION 3……………………………………………………………………11-14

QUESTION 4……………………………………………………………………15-21
QUESTION 1

a. Total number of responses to each level of the survey across all regions for each year.

i. Dealer Satisfaction

The total number of responses to each level of survey scale across all regions for each year
was obtained using SUM functions [=SUM (data range)].

Survey Scale: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sample

Europe Size

2018 1 0 2 14 22 11 50

2019 0 0 2 14 20 14 50

2020 1 1 1 8 34 15 60

2021 1 2 6 12 34 45 100

2022 2 3 5 15 44 56 125

North
America

2018 0 0 0 2 6 2 10

2019 0 0 0 2 6 2 10

2020 0 0 1 4 11 14 30

2021 0 1 1 3 12 33 50

2022 1 1 2 4 22 60 90

1
 South
America

2018 0 0 1 3 7 4 15

2019 0 0 1 2 8 4 15

2020 0 0 1 2 15 7 25

2021 0 0 1 2 21 6 30

2022 0 0 1 4 17 8 30

Pacific Rim

2018 0 0 1 2 2 0 5

2019 0 0 1 1 3 0 5

2020 0 0 1 1 3 1 6

2021 0 0 0 2 5 3 10

2022 0 0 1 2 7 2 12

China

2020 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

2021 0 0 1 4 2 0 7

2022 0 0 1 5 8 2 16

Survey Scale: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

2
 Year

2018 1 0 4 21 37 17 80

2019 0 0 4 19 37 20 80

2020 1 1 4 16 63 37 122

2021 1 3 9 23 74 87 197

2022 3 4 10 30 98 128 273

In 2018, the total number of responses at that time recorded 80 responses. Further, in 2019
the number of responses for all scales was 80 responses. In 2020, the number of responses
was 122 responses. The next in 2021 was 197. Finally, in 2022 recorded the highest number
of 273.

3
ii. End-User Satisfaction

The total number of responses to each level of survey scale across all regions for each year
was obtained using SUM functions [=SUM (data range)].

Sample

Europe 0 1 2 3 4 5 Size

2018 1 3 6 15 37 38 100

2019 1 2 4 18 35 40 100

2020 1 2 5 17 34 41 100

2021 0 2 4 15 33 46 100

2022 0 2 3 15 31 49 100

North America

2018 1 2 5 18 36 38 100

2019 1 3 6 17 36 37 100

2020 0 2 6 19 37 36 100

2021 0 2 5 20 37 36 100

2022 0 2 5 19 37 37 100

South America

2018 1 2 4 21 36 36 100

4
 2019 1 2 5 21 34 37 100

2020 1 1 4 26 37 31 100

2021 1 1 3 17 41 37 100

2022 0 1 2 19 45 33 100

Pacific Rim

2018 2 3 5 15 41 34 100

2019 1 2 7 15 41 34 100

2020 1 2 5 16 40 36 100

2021 0 2 4 17 40 37 100

2022 0 1 3 19 42 35 100

China

2020 0 3 3 6 28 10 50

2021 1 2 2 4 30 11 50

2022 0 1 1 3 31 14 50

Survey Scale: 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

5
 Year

2018 5 10 20 69 150 146 400

2019 4 9 22 71 146 148 400

2020 3 8 17 65 139 118 350

2021 2 7 13 53 144 131 350

2022 0 5 9 56 149 131 350

In 2018 and 2019 recorded the same number of responses, namely 400 responses.
Meanwhile, in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a total of 350 responses were recorded.

6
a. Account of the number of failures in the worksheet Mower Test.

Account of the number of failures: 89

The calculation's formula is as follows:

=COUNTIF(range, criteria)
The implication of the formula on the worksheet Mower Test
=COUNTIF(B5:AY104, “Fail”)

According to the results of the calculation, the number of failures in the Mower Test
worksheet is 89.

7
b. The market share for each product and region is based on the database’s PLE and
industry sales data.

Company Market Share for Mower

Company Revenue Industry Revenue Market Share

1,097,766.00 11,520,550.67 9.53%

Company Market Share For Mower by Region

Region Company Gross Industry Gross Profit Company Market

Revenue Share

NA 452,540.00 4,354,853.21 10.39%

SA 16,940.00 40,550.44 41.78%

Eur 68,940.00 1,267,203.30 5.44%

Pac 10,350.00 97,693.66 10.59%

China 113.00 - 0.00%

World 548,883.00 5,760,250.07 9.53%

Company Market Share for Mower

Company Revenue Industry Revenue Market Share

316,822.00 2,237,752.60 14.16%

Company Market Share For Mower by Region

Region Company Gross Industry Gross Company Market

8
 Revenue Revenue Share

NA 64,502 463,576.10 13.91%

SA 35,901 125,574.48 28.59%

Eur 38,878 386,168.98 10.07%

Pac 16,331 79,363.62 20.58%

China 2,799 64,193.13 0.00%

World 158,411 1,118,876.30 14.16%

c. Summarize the above findings in a report.

The total number of failures in the Mower Test is 54. Company Revenue for mower is
1,097,766 in Mower Unit Sales, with gross revenues by month and region and global
totals. 11,520,550.67 percent in Industry Mower Total Sales, with a market share for
each product and region of 9.53 percent. Tractor Unit Sales generates gross revenues of
316,822 dollars, with global totals of 2,237,752.60 dollars. Overall, 14.16 percent of
Industry Tractor Total Sales is accounted for by each individual product and location.

9
QUESTION 2

a. Illustrate using appropriate charts for the data in the worksheet of:
i. Complaints

Complaints Chart 2.1

The graphs display complaints for the year 2018, with June 2018 seeing the highest number
of complaints from North America. In May of 2019, complaints from North America
accounted for the largest portion of the total. In June of 2020, North America accounted for
the largest percentage of complaints. In June of 2021, North America accounted for the

10
largest percentage of complaints. The highest number of complaints from January to
December 2022 came from North America in June of the same year.

ii. On time delivery

On time delivery Chart 2.2

In 2018, for On-Time Delivery. The number of deliveries and the number of deliveries on
time were highest in December 2018 and lowest in January 2018. In 2019, the highest was in
December of that year, and the lowest was in January of that year. From January to December
2020, the number of deliveries and the number of deliveries on time were highest in
September 2020. The lowest point was in January of 2020. Which month had the highest
number of deliveries and the highest number of deliveries on time from January 2021 to
December 2021? The lowest point was in May of 2021. From January 2022 to December
2022, the number of deliveries and the number of deliveries on time were at their peak in
December 2022. The lowest point was in February of 2022.

iii. Defects after delivery

11
 Defects after Delivery Chart 2.3

The month with the most defects after delivery in 2018 was June, with 848 items. The month
with the most defects after delivery in 2019 was August, with 857 items. The month with the
most defects after delivery in 2020 was February, with 836 items. The month with the most
defects after delivery in 2021 was July, with 696 items. The month with the most defects after
delivery in 2022 was February, with 575 items.

iv. Response

Response Time Chart 2.4

Response times to customer support calls reached an all-time high of 8.02 in the first quarter
of 2021. The average response time for customer support calls was 8.21 seconds in the
second quarter of 2021. Response times to customer support calls reached a record high of
6.76 seconds in the third quarter of 2021. The average response time for customer support
calls was 8.93 seconds in the fourth quarter of 2021. Response times to customer support
inquiries reached a record high of 6.46 seconds in the first quarter of 2022. The response time
for customer support calls was 5.67 seconds in the second quarter of 2022. For customer

12
support calls, the average response time was 7.42 seconds in the third quarter of 2022.
Responding to service requests took the longest on average 4.87 minutes in the fourth quarter
of 2022.

QUESTION 3

a. For all hypothesis tests, assume that the level of significance is 0.05 unless otherwise
stated: The Excel file Sales Data provides data of a sample of customers. An industry trade
publication stated that the average profit per customer for his industry was at least $4,500.
Using a test of hypothesis, does the data support this claim or not? (Evans, Chapter 7,
Problem 14, p. 255)

Data <- read.csv("./data/sales_data.csv")

i. Data

13
14
15
ii. Summary(data)

Customer Percent. Gross. Gross. Industry. Competitive

Gross. Sales Profit Code .Rating
Profit

Min. 1.00 :0.0300 170 40.6 1.000 1

1st Qu. 15.75 0.1400 2646 435.1 3.000 2

Median 30.50 0.2000 6760 1662.4 5.000 3

Mean 30.50 0.2119 25016 4239.2 4.483 3

3rd Qu. 45.25 0.2450 32171 5690.4 6.000 4

Max. 60.00 0.6000 179101 25379.3 7.000 5

H0: Mean(Profit) >= 4500 H1: Mean(Profit) < 4500

m <- 4500
p <- 4239.2
n <- nrow(data)
s2 <- var(data$Gross.Sales)
z <- (p-m)/sqrt(s2/n)
z

16
[1] -0.05558322
z = 0.019
In this case, the sample proportion of 4239.2 is 0.056 standard error below the hypothesised
value of 4500. Because this is a lower-tailed test, we reject H0 if the value of the test statistic
is smaller than the critical value. In other words, if the significance is from 1.9% and above,
the data does not support the hypothesis. Otherwise, the data supports the claim if the
significance is smaller than 1.9%.

17
QUESTION 4:

a. Based on data in the Performance Lawn Equipment database, you are required to
answer the followings: Are there significant differences in ratings of specific service
attributes in the 2022 Customer Survey data? (Use Anova: Single Factor)

i. P-Value approach

The f-statistic is 23.69 and the p-value is 1.08E-14 which is lower than the threshold value
(0.05). Hence we are able to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that the data are statistically
significant.

ii. Critical value approach

The F-statistic value in this situation is 23.69, and the critical F-value is 2.616, suggesting
that the F-statistic value is more than the crucial F-value. The null hypothesis

18
b. Have the data in the worksheet Defects After Delivery changed significantly over the
past 5 years? (Use Anova: Single Factor)

i. P-Value approach

The p-value is 8.68E-31 which is lower than the significance value (0.05). Hence we are able
to reject the null hypothesis. We can conclude that the mean defects After delivery differ
from the mean Defects before delivery.

ii. Critical value approach

The f statistic value is 178.2154 which is higher than the critical f-value which is 2.54. It
shows that the null hypothesis is rejected.

19
c. Use regression analysis to evaluate the data of Employee Retention. Develop a
multiple regression model for predicting years’ retention as a function of the other
variables.

F -Test
hypothesis
H ൦: B₁ = B = B = 0
H₁ : at least one B is not 0

We delete the gender, college graduation and local variables from consideration before
conducting regression analysis because they are not in numerical form

The R square is 0.15, showing the analytical function

Hence the retention, = -2.74 + (0.067xYrseducation) + (0.67xCollege CGPA) + (0.29xAge)

The significance F is 0.11 which is greater than the significance value 𝞪=0.05, hence we are
failed to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that the independent variable has no effect
on the dependent variable. This is because the independent variable is equal to zero.

20
t-Test
hypothesis
H ൦ : B₁ = 0
H₁ : B₁ ≠ 0

For this test, we are using the p-value of each independent variable to test the null hypothesis.
The values are all bigger than the significance level (0.05) except for age which is lower than
the significance level. Hence the null hypothesis for the year’s education and college CGPA
coefficients are failed to reject the null hypothesis. We can assume that the data is not
statistically significant. But it is different with the independent variable of Age where the
value is lower than the significance level, hence we can reject the null hypothesis and assume
that it is statistically significant.

Coe interval
hypothesis
H ൦: B₁ = 0
H₁ : B₁ ≠ 0

As we could refer below, the confidence interval for each variable are not zero, showing that
the coefficients are statistically significant

21
d. Use correlation matrix to detect potential multicollinearity in the data of
Purchasing Survey. Suggest how to solve multicollinearity problems?

The step to solve the multicollinearity prob is VIF (Variance Inflation Factor). First
Check the VIF for each predictor variable. The High VIF values that are commonly
greater than 10 suggested multicollinearity. By deleting one of the highly correlated
variables. Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Transform variables into uncorrelated
principal components. This helps retain most of the information while reducing
multicollinearity.

22
e. Summarise the above findings in a report

Using the ANOVA: Single Factor analysis, we analyse the data in the worksheet
using the results of the worksheet 2022 Customer Survey. We use the p-value technique and
the important value strategy to do this. The p-value approach has an F- statistic value of 23.69
and a p-value of 1.08E-14, which is less than the threshold of 0.05. The F-statistic value for
the p-value technique is 23.69, and the p- value is 1.08E-14 (That is, less than 0.05). As a
result, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there are statistically significant
disparities in product or service ratings. Using this assumption, the F-statistic value is 23.69,
and the important F-value is 2.62, indicating that the F-statistic value is greater than the F-
value in this example. As a consequence, the null hypothesis is eliminated from
consideration.

We utilize the p-value approach and the crucial value strategy to describe the data
analysis findings from the ANOVA: Single Factor analysis in the worksheet Defects After
Delivery. Using the p-value method, the F-statistic value is 178.22, and the p- value is 8.67E-
31, that is below the 0.05 threshold value. Using the F-statistic value method, the F-statistic
value is 178.22, and the p-value is 8.67E-31, both of which are less than the threshold value
of 0.05. (0.05). As a result, the null hypothesis is rejected, and we find that the mean number
of Defects After Delivery has increased dramatically over the last five years. The F statistic
value is 178.22, and the important F-value is 2.54, indicating that the F- statistic value is
bigger than the F-value determined by the critical-value approach. As an outcome, the null
hypothesis is eliminated from consideration.

To further understand the problem, the data from the Employee Retention worksheet, that
was derived from the information from the Multiple Linear Regression Model, was examined
using regression analysis. Based on the coefficients, the regression model YearsPLE(Y) = -
2.7371 - 0.0671 YrsEducation + 0.6800 College GPA + 0.2915 Age might well be
constructed. When compared to the other variables, the Years Education variable has a larger
effect on the YearsPLE than the other variables, as shown by the model. Because the R2
value is 0.15, it is acceptable to believe that Years of Education, College GPA, and Age
account for approximately 15% of the variation in Years of PLE. This example demonstrates
that there are additional variables impacting Years PLE in contrast to Years Education
(including College GPA and Age). When we look at the significance F (F-test), we can see

23
that it is bigger than the level of significance (0.05), suggesting that the null hypothesis is not
rejected. Furthermore, the p-values for each independent variable are generated in order to
evaluate the hypotheses for each independent variable independently.

For all three variables, there is a statistically significant difference between independent
variables Years of Education and College GPA (p-values larger than 0.05). As a result of our
findings, the null hypothesis cannot be ruled out. The age effect, by contrast, has a p-value
smaller than 0.05. Only one variable, age, has been discovered to influence PLE employee
retention, and it is statistically significant in relation to employee retention. In a nutshell, we
reject the null hypothesis that age is a predictor of organizational retention. Because the
confidence interval does not contain a zero, we can conclude that the coefficients are
statistically significant in this case. It indicates that the linearity criteria were not met in this
circumstance.

24