Site Loader

6.2 Descriptive Data Analysis
This section discusses the general demographic descriptions, demographic features of the respondents, on the basis of the implementation of the four building block shop floor management tools, the two improvement practices and the improvement outcomes.
6.2.1 Demographic description
Table 6.8 shows the sample distribution of survey participants’ qualifications. 77.2%, of the participants reported that they did not attend university; followed by 21.4 % who held a bachelor degree; and a small 1.4% had a masters degree or above. All employees, irrespective of their qualifications were encouraged to contribute in individual improvement suggestions scheme and also to participate in group improvement activities.

Qualification Frequency Percentage (%)
Secondary/college or below 407 77
Bachelor Degree 113 38.3
Masters Degree or above 7 1.3
Total 527 100
Table 6.8 Sample distribution on participants’ qualification

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


order now

In the context of the position held in the company, Table 6.9 indicates that the line supervisor to shop floor worker was 1:10.2 (54 line supervisors to 446 shop floor operators). Thus, there was no considerable difference between the proportions of respondents in the ratio of line supervisors to shop floor operators and the data obtained from the joint ventures official documents for all employees (about 1:8). Additionally, Table 6.9 also exhibits that majority of the respondents (77%) were shop floor operatives, 12.9% were line supervisors and 3.2% managers. It obviously marks that Improvement activities were not dominated by the top and middle management. This is in consonancet with the ideas of Caffyn (1999), Bodek (2002), Bessant and Caffyn (1997) who opined that the employees’ total involvement was one of the critical enablers for implementing continuous improvement.

Work title Frequency Percentage (%)
Shop floor worker 415 86
Line supervisor 52 12
Manager 16 2
Total 371 100
Table 6.9 Sample distribution on participants’ work title

Work improvement experience were classified into four groups, as shown in Table
6.10 and Table 6.11. Table 6.10 shows that the majority of the respondents (72.3% = 50.4% + 13.2%+ 5.7%) had more than five years of experience working in the same organisation. 15.2% had more than ten years of experience and a further 5.7% had more than 15 years of experience. Table 6.11 depicts that 100 out of 385 respondents (25.0%) had less than five years of experience of implementing continuous improvement activities. However, the rest of the respondents (74.1% = 50.7% + 20.5% + 2.9%) had at least five years’ experience. 87 out of 527respondents (22.4% = 20. % + 2.2%) had more than ten years’ experience.

Years in the organisation Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 5 years 220 33
Between 5 to 10 years 287 53.4
Between 10 to 15 years 52 10.2
More than 15 years 21 5.7
Total 371 100
Table 6.10 Sample distribution on participants’ working experience

Years of continuous improvement activities Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 5 years 200 28.0
Between 5 to10 years 178 51.7
Between 10 to 15 years 85 18.3
More than 15 years 9 2
Total 502 100
Table 6.11 Sample distribution on participants’ improvement experience

Table 6.12 depicts that more than half of the respondents had participated in QCCs (51.3%). Based on the previous findings (Inoue, 1985; Lillrank and Kano, 1989; Harrington, 2006), the large number of the QCC improvement practices was most probably due to the source of the survey sample that was made from the organisations whose improvements were mainly made on a department-wide/company-wide basis for long- term changes. Nevertheless, the results also depict a similar proportion of participants (49.9%) had participated in both QCCs and Teians.

Improvement focuses Frequency Percentage (%)
QCC 270 50.7
Teians 80 12.4
About the same 152 30.9
Total 502 100
Table 6.12 Sample distribution on participants’ improvement focuses

Table 6.13 indicates that 85 % of the participants were QCC group members, and 21.3% of the respondents were QCC group leaders or facilitators. Table 6.14 shows that the majority of the QCC groups had 5 to 15 members. Around two-third (62.7%) of the participants reported that their QCC groups had 5 to 10 members, and another one-third (32.0%) had 10 to 15 members. Only a small portion of the respondents had very small or large QCC groups (0.2% and 3.0% respectively). This result is in consonance with other studies (Lillrank and Kano, 1989; Honda Motor, 1998).

QCC group position Frequency Percentage (%)
Member 303 81.7
Leader/facilitator 68 18.3
Total 371 100
Table 6.13 Sample distribution on participants’ QCC group position

QCC group size Frequency Percentage (%)
Less than 5 persons 1 0.3
Between 5 to10 persons 229 61.7
Between 10 to 15 persons 126 34.0
More than 15 persons 15 4.0
Total 371 100
Table 6.14 Sample distribution on participants’ QCC group size

Table 6.15 shows that 292 out of 502 (33.4%) respondents revealed that QCC members were mostly from the same area, 102 (23.0%) reported that most participants were from different areas, and the rest of the 198 (39.6%) the group was equally distributed. Wood and Munshi (1991), advise that this might be due to the organisations focused upon department-wide/company-wide changes which needed cross-functional improvement ideas.

QCC membership Frequency Percentage (%)
Mainly from the same area 146 39.4
Mainly from the different areas 78 21.0
About the same 147 39.6
Total 371 100

Table 6.15 Sample distribution on participants’ QCC membership

The frequency of improvement training was categorised as presented in Table 6.16. More than half (58.8% = 57.0% + 1.8%) of the respondents did not attend regular training (less than once in every two months), only a small number (24.8%) of the respondents trained about once every two months and a lot less (15.3% = 12.9% + 2.4%) trained at least once per month. Yasuda (1989) observed that continuous improvement, especially Teians, requires hands-on improvement knowledge which emanates from hard core first-hand working experience.

Post Author: admin

6. Rapid primary screening process:
ELISA can be done. Here, adsorbtion of antigen to the bottom of 96-well plates, incubation for growth of hybridomas occur. The desired antibody in the sample remains bound to antigen and is detected by an immune-conjugate. Immune-conjugate is consists of two components, one antibody is distinct for an epitope that remains in the constant domain in the first antibody. It acts as anti-antibody. Second one is alkaline phosphatase enzyme. Immune-conjugate is retained in the well during the immobilization at first incubation of antibody. After washing colorless substrate of enzyme (ex. p-nitrophenyl phosphate) is converted to a colored product (ex. p-nitrophenol) by the enzyme (ex. alkaline phosphatase). After incubation and the termination of enzyme function, ELISA reader quantify the optical density of product.(Kulkarni, 2002)

Adapted from: ELISA Guide – Creative Diagnostics (no date). Available at: https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/ELISA-guide.htm (Accessed: 4 November 2018).

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


order now

Figure: Screening process by ELISA (Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)

7. Cloning:
After screening, cloning can be done by three different techniques (cloning by technique of limiting dilutions, cloning using semi-solid agars and cloning and selection using the fluorescence-activated cell sorter). The limiting dilution method allows the enumeration of cells in the culture, dilution and fractional adsorption into new wells in which each well is consist of only one cell. Then, cell regeneration process is repeated to assure presence of monoclonal property. Another method is soft agar method that allows the proliferation of enormous malignant cells in a low agar content semi-solid medium. The dispersion of culture into single cells and the presence of spaced colonies due to such cell concentration ensure the presence of monoclonal antibody. Both techniques are used by combining these methods.(Hurrell, 2018)

Adapted from: Cloning Method. EuroMAbNet (no date). Available at: https://www.euromabnet.com/protocols/cloning.php (Accessed: 4 November 2018).

Figure: Cloning process by technique of limiting dilutions

8. Cryopreservation:
It is essential against the loss of beneficial lines. Hybridoma should be froze down as soon as possible to reduce the loss of chromosome.(Hurrell, 2018)

Post Author: admin

6) The main peculiarity of political discourse is that it contains mostly those text types which have a manipulative intention as a prevailing one. Among the political text types of a manipulative kind we can see political interviews, slogans, announcements, articles in special party papers and certain messages in electronic mass media. Nevertheless, the most remarkable type of manipulative messages which function within political discourse is the text type of pre-election propaganda speeches. As a rule, the texts of such speeches have some structural and intentional characteristic features which make it possible to consider these speeches as a definite text type. All speeches contain special etiquette phrases greetings and words of appreciation, they have prognostic character, the main communicative intention of such speeches is that of promise. In addition to that, pre-election propaganda speeches have one more interesting peculiarity, the collective recipient of the speech is fully or partly aware of the manipulative character of the message. In other words, recipients guess or understand which effect is planned to be achieved by the producers of pre-election propaganda speeches before the election. One of the most frequently used rhetorical devices is the use of first-person plural widely used in pre-election speeches. Political speeches, especially those delivered at party conventions or other collections of listeners who share the platform or party of the speaker, are generally delivered in the first-person plural, rather than singular.

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Eugene!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out