The improvement outcomes
Table 6.20 shows the respondents’ improvement outcomes. It comprises the knowledge and skills (Ksk), sense of participation (Sp), overall perceptions (Over) and contributions (Cont).

Ksk Sp Over Cont Note:
Mean 5.2 5.35 5.65 5.20 1-“strongly disagree” 5-“slightly agree”
Median 5.35 5.68 6.00 5.68 2-“disagree” 6-“agree”
Min 3.00 1.68 1.52 1.34 3-“slightly disagree” 7-“strongly agree”
Max 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4-“neither agree nor disagree”
Table 6.20 The overall perception of the improvement outcomes

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The shop floor participants reported consistently positive perceptions of their long-term outcome measures. As presented in Table 6.20, the mean response for all outcomes were found to be over 5 (“slightly agree”). However, the results presented a fairly wide range of variation in responses on the 7-point response scale. Specifically, the minimum observed response was 3 (“slightly disagree”) for knowledge and skills (Ksk), and even lower for sense of participation (Sp), overall perceptions (Over) and contributions (Cont) at 1.67, 1.50 and 1.33 respectively (below “disagree”).

Figure 6.9 Mean perception of improvement outcomes

As depicted in Figure 6.9, for all outcomes, the cumulative percentage for negative perceptions was not high. The number of participants who selected 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) or below for all outcomes, was less than 4% where as the majority of respondents reported positive perceptions. It was found that 73.8% (54.2%+19.6%) of respondents selected 5 (“slightly agree”) for knowledge and skills (Ksk), and almost half of the respondents rated 6 (“agree”) for sense of participation (Sp), contributions (Cont) and overall perceptions (Over) (47.2%, 47.2% and 55.3% respectively). These results indicate that, for the participating organisations, most, although not all, of the shop floor participants perceived the improvement outcomes positively.

Factor Analysis of Survey Scales
SPSS was used to perform factor analysis to assess the construct validity (Emory and Cooper, 1991) after the data screening and demographic description.

Univariate analysis
EFA was deployed to identify the underlying structure and examine the factor loadings of the 33 Likert-scale variables. This scale has got 16 answers for the use of shop floor management tools and 17 answers for improvement outcomes. To begin with, the fitness of the data for factor analysis was determined. The univariate analysis revealed that the data were not normally distributed. As a consequence ‘bootstrap’ analysis became imperative in later step to ensure the reliability of the results.

Preliminary analyses
It was identified in the next that the data had a sampling adequacy for factor analysis (the KMO test gave a result of 0.807), there were correlations between the variables (Barlett’s Test of Sphericity produced a significant result, p