Presentation of Findings

4.1Introduction

This chapter presents finding, an analysis of the data collected, presentation of the results and interpretation of the findings on the effects of a sustainable supplier platform to the performance of the procurement function. The findings are analyzed, interpreted and then presented in accordance with the study variables, objectives of the study and the research questions.

4.2 Presentation of Findings

4.2.1 Response rate

The researcher had issued 283 questionnaires to the sample target group

Table 4.2.1 response rate
Number of questionnairesNumber of respondentsProportion%
Issued51100%
Returned4588.23%
Presentation of Findings
Response rate

Source (Author 2014)

Figure 4.1 Response Rate

Respondents responded well and out of the 51 questionnaires that were issued, 45 were collected. This is because, most of the responds were within and for the suppliers, it was easier to access them because they had a forum in KICC. The ones that were not returned were for some doctors who did not return after the forum break and they carried with them the questionnaires.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.2 Level of education

This was used to establish the level of education of the respondents

Table 4.2.2 level of education
Level of EducationNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Certificate48.80%
Diploma1328.88%
Bachelors Degree1533.22%
Post Graduate1431.10%
TOTAL51100%

Source: Author (2014)

Level of education
Level of education
Figure 4.2 Level of Education

The level of education was well distributed with bachelor degree graduates having the highest percentage of 33.22%, post graduate following with 31.10%, respondents with diploma level were third with 28.88% while certificate level had the lowest number with only8.80%. This made it easy to answer the question because all of them were able to understand English and had a depth of knowledge on the subject matter of the questionnaires.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.3 Working Experience

This chapter was establishing the different working experience of the correspondents of the study.

Table 4.2.3 Working Experience
ExperienceNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Below 1 year511.11%
Between 1-5 Years1942.22%
Between 6-101124.44%
Between 11-20 Years715.56%
21 Years and above36.67%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Working Experience
Working Experience
Figure 4.3 Working Experience

The section between 1 and 5 years had the largest percentage of respondents having 42.22% followed by the range between 6 to 10 years with 24.44%. This means that the major section of the hospital is composed of recently recruited employees. Third in the sequence is the range between 11 and 20 years of experience with 15.56%, followed by respondents below one year with 11.11% while those above 21 years and above were the fewest with 6.67%. This means that majority of the respondents would probably be young and easily relate to advances in technology in their specific area of expertise.

4.2.4 Occurrence of stock outs

This chapter aimed to analyze the occurrence of stock outs in the organization.

 

Table 4.2.4 Occurrence of stock outs
FrequencyTarget populationProportion%
Strongly Agree2248.89%
Agree1022.22%
Neither Agree nor Disagree48.88%
Disagree715.55%
Strongly Disagree24.44%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Occurrence of stock outs
Occurrence of stock outs

This was to show the frequency of stock outs to establish whether the sourcing process was effective enough. 48.89% of the respondents strongly agreed that there are experienced stock outs in the hospital, 22.22% respondents agreed, 15.55% disagreed on the occurrence of stock outs, 8.88% neither agreed nor disagreed while 4.44% strongly disagreed that the hospital experiences stock outs. This meant that there was a high occurrence of stock outs as 71% of the respondents at least agreed.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.5 The replenishment period

This section aimed to analyze the existing replenishment periods in the hospital

Table 4.2.5 The replenishment method
FrequencyNumber of respondentsProportion%
1-7 Days715.56%
7-14 Days511.11%
14-21 Days2351.11%
Over 21 Days1022.22%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Figure 4.5 Replenishment Period
Replenishment Period
Replenishment Period

This was to establish the responsiveness of the available suppliers to changes in demand of inventory. 51.11% of the respondent received their replenishment between 14 to 21 days, 22.22% receive replenishment after 21 days, 15.56% believe replenishment occur between the first and seventh day, 11.11% believe that replenishment occurred between day 7 and day 14. This means that replenishment mainly happened after the 14th day as 73% of the respondents indicated

4.2.6 Rating the hospital’s sourcing process

This section aimed to investigate how the existing method of sourcing fits to the organization.

Table 4.2.8 Rating the hospital’s sourcing process
ResponseTarget populationProportion%
Very Good00%
Good613.34%
Average2044.44%
Poor920.00%
Very Poor1022.22%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

sourcing process
sourcing process

This section was aimed at establishing the efficiency of the hospital’s overall sourcing process. Average score had the highest response with 44.44%, followed by very poor at 22.22%, 20.00% responded that the sourcing process was poor, 13.34% rated the sourcing process as good while none rated it as very good.

4.2.7 Agreement with the organization’s supplier selection method

In this section, the researcher aimed to understand whether the respondents are satisfied with the existing state of supplier selection

Table 4.2.7 Agreement with the organization’s supplier selection method
ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Strongly Agree12.22%
Agree48.89%
Neither Agree nor Disagree12.22%
Disagree3066.67%
Strongly Disagree920%
TOTAL45100%

Source 🙁 Author 2015)

Source (Author 2014)

Agreements to Supplier Selection Method
Agreements to Supplier Selection Method

66.67% of the respondents indicated that they disagree with the organization’s supplier selection method, 20% strongly disagreed, 8.89% agreed, while 2.22% neither agreed nor disagreed and strongly agreed. This meant that the supplier selection method is not transparent as respondents don’t support it.

4.2.8 Rating the hospital’s suppliers

The researcher analyzed the performance of the existing suppliers in this section.

Table 4.2.8 Rating the hospital’s suppliers
RatingsNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very Good12.25%
Good511.11%
Average3066.67%
Poor613.33%
Very Poor36.67%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Rating The Hospital’s suppliers
Rating The Hospital’s suppliers

This was aimed to establish how the suppliers fit into the organization’s plan. 66.67% of the respondents rated the suppliers as average, followed by 13.33% that indicated the suppliers were poor, 11.11% of the respondents indicated the suppliers as good, and 6.67% of the respondents rated the suppliers as very poor while 2.22% of the respondents rated the suppliers as very poor. This means that the hospital sources from the wrong suppliers as more than 86% of the respondents indicated.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.9Rating effectiveness of the organization’s supplier base

In this section, the researcher aimed to analyze how well the available supplier base fits to the organization’s need.

Table 4.2.9 Rating effectiveness of the supplier base
RatingsTarget populationProportion%
Strongly Agree24.45%
Agree715.56%
Neither Agree nor Disagree1022.22%
Disagree2044.45%
Strongly Disagree613.33%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Supplier Base Effectiveness
Supplier Base Effectiveness

This was done to establish the effectiveness of the available supplier base at the hospital. 44.45% of the respondents indicated that they disagree, while 22.22% neither agreed nor disagreed. 15.56% agreed that the supplier base was effective while 13.33% strongly disagreed with 4.45% strongly agreeing. At least 59% of the respondents disagreed that the hospital doesn’t have an effective supplier base.

4.2.10 Ordering is done electronically

The researcher aimed to analyze whether ordering is done manually or online

Table 4.2.17 Is ordering done electronically?

ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Strongly Agree00%
Agree48.89%
Neither Agree nor Disagree920.00%
Disagree3066.67%
Strongly Disagree3 6.66%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Is ordering done electronically
Is ordering done electronically

66.67% of the respondents disagreed that ordering is done electronically, while 20.00% neither agreed nor disagreed, 8.89% agreed while 6.6% strongly disagreed that ordering is done electronically. No respondent indicated that they strongly agreed that Kenyatta National Hospital orders electronically. With 72% of the respondents indicated that they do not believe the hospital orders electronically, this means that ordering is done manually.

4.2.11 Effectiveness of the supplier base

The researcher aimed to determine whether the available supplier is efficient

Table 4.2.9 Rating effectiveness of the supplier base
RatingsTarget populationProportion%
Strongly Agree24.45%
Agree715.56%
Neither Agree nor Disagree1022.22%
Disagree2044.45%
Strongly Disagree613.33%
Strongly Disagree45100%

Source (Author 2014)

Does the organization maintain its relationship online
Does the organization maintain its relationship online

This section was seeking to know if the organization maintains supplier relationships electronically. 51.24% of the respondents disagreed, 27.56% strongly disagreed while 15.9% neither agreed nor disagreed followed by 8.13% who agreed while 0.7% strongly agreed that the hospital maintains its relationship electronically.

4.2.12 Hospital has sufficient Information on available suppliers

The researcher aimed to investigate if the hospital has enough information to make informed supplier selection decisions

Table 4.2.12 Availability of sufficient supplier information
ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Strongly Agree22.22%
Agree78.84%
Neither Agree nor Disagree1220.00%
Disagree2066.67%
Strongly Disagree44.44%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Does the organisation have sufficient supplier information
Does the organisation have sufficient supplier information

This aimed to establish whether the organization has sufficient credible information while selecting the best supplier. 66.67% disagree that the organization has enough supplier information, 20% neither agrees nor disagrees, 8.84% of the respondents indicated that they agreed, while 4.44% agrees and 2.22% strongly agrees that Kenyatta National Hospital has enough information whilst selecting the suppliers.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.13 Supplier Visits

The researcher aimed to establish the frequency of visits to the suppliers’ plants

Table 4.2.13 Frequency of supplier visits
FrequencyNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very Frequent34.59%
Frequent715.90%
Neither frequent nor rare2043.81%
Rarely922.97%
Very Rarely614.13%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

How frequent are visits to the suppliers’ plant

43.81% of the respondents indicated neither frequent nor rare, 22.97% indicating rarely, 15.90%indicated frequent while 14.13% indicating very rarely and 4.59% indicating that the visits are very frequent. This means that the pattern of visit is not known but a larger portion of at least 36% indicated the visits as rarely.

4.2.14 Award of tenders is based on available supplier information

This was to establish whether the award of tenders is based on available supplier information.

Table 4.2.14 Award of tenders is based on available information
ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Strongly Agree11.3%
Agree58.07%
Neither Agree nor Disagree915.90%
Disagree2051.54%
Strongly Disagree1027.56%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

14 Is awarding of tenders based on available supplier information?
14 Is awarding of tenders based on available supplier information?

51.24% of the respondents disagreed followed by 27.56% which strongly disagreed. 15.9% neither agree nor disagree whether suppliers are selected based on available information while 8.13% of the respondents agreed with 0.7% respondents strongly agreed that supplier selection is based on the available supplier information.

Upload Your Assignment

4.2.15 Rating the efforts by the organization to increase supplier information

This sought to rate efforts of Kenyatta National Hospital to increase the available supplier information.

Table 4.2.15 Rating efforts to increase supplier information
RatingsNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very Good21.36%
Good513.43%
Average2041.34%
Poor1432.16%
Very Poor512.06%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

How do you rate efforts to increase supplier information
How do you rate efforts to increase supplier information

The highest percentage of respondents indicated the efforts as average with 41.34%, followed by 32.16% rated the efforts as poor, while 13.43% rated the efforts as good, 12.06% respondents rated the efforts as very poor and 1.36% rated the efforts as very good. This means that the efforts are not good enough.

4.2.16 Efficiency of the suppliers

This was seeking to establish the efficiency of the available suppliers, how well the suppliers meet the requirements of the organization.

Table 4.2.16 Rating the efficiency of the suppliers
RatingsNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very Good13.18%
Good512.01%
Average2454.06%
Poor1019.43%
Very Poor512.01%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Rating the efficiency of the suppliers
Rating the efficiency of the suppliers

54.06% of the respondents indicated that the efficiency of the suppliers was average followed by 19.43% who indicated that the suppliers were poor while 12.01% of the respondents indicated that it was very good and poor, while 3.18% rated the suppliers’ efficiency as very good. This means that the suppliers didn’t perform to standards expected.

4.2.17 Sourcing costs

The researcher established the view of the respondents on the sourcing cost of Kenyatta National Hospital

Table 4.2.17 Sourcing costs
ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very High2659.01%
High1023.67%
Average714.84%
Low32.47%
Very Low00%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Rate the level of sourcing costs
Rate the level of sourcing costs

Of all the respondents, 59.01% indicated it as very high, 23.67% high, 14.84% average, 2.47% low with no respondent indicating that the sourcing costs are very low. This means that the sourcing costs are high.

4.2.18 The organization sources from the most cost effective suppliers

The section sought to establish whether the hospital sources from the cost effective suppliers.

Table 4.2.18 Sourcing from the most cost effective suppliers
ResponseNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Strongly Agree35.65%
Agree58.07%
Neither Agree nor Disagree815.90%
Disagree1851.54%
Strongly Disagree1127.56%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Does the hospital source from the most cost effective supplier
Does the hospital source from the most cost effective supplier

The section sought to establish whether the hospital sources from the cost effective suppliers.  45.58% of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, followed by 24.73% who disagreed. 20.49% agreed while 5.65% strongly agreed while 3.53% strongly disagreed. This means the hospital doesn’t source from the most cost effective suppliers.

4.2.19 Cost Value relationship

This was to find out the value cost benefit analysis

Table 4.2.19 Cost value relationship
RatingsNumber of RespondentsProportion%
Very Good11.4%
Good35.65%
Average2763.07%
Poor1022.26%
Very Poor47.08%
TOTAL45100%

Source: Author (2014)

Source (Author 2014)

Does the hospital get value for its money
Does the hospital get value for its money

This was to find out the value cost benefit analysis, if the organization achieves the value for the money spent. 63.6% of the respondents indicated that the relationship was average while 22.26% of the respondents indicated that the relationship was poor. 7.08% indicated that the relationship was very poor. 5.65% rated it as good while 1.4% of the respondents indicated that it was very good.

4.3 SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS

Using quantitative findings, the response rate was very good. Respondents responded well and out of the 51 questionnaires that were issued, 45 were collected. This is because, most of the responds were within and for the suppliers, it was easier to access them because they had a forum in KICC. The ones that were not returned were for some suppliers and health workers who left the forum earlier and didn’t return the questionnaires.

The level of education was well distributed with bachelor degree graduates having the highest percentage of 33.22%, post graduate following with 31.10%, respondents with diploma level were third with 28.88% while certificate level had the lowest number with only8.80%. This made it easy to answer the question because all of them were able to understand English and had a depth of knowledge on the subject matter of the questionnaires.

On the work experience, the section between 1 and 5 years had the largest percentage of respondents having 42.20% followed by the range between 6 to 10 years with 24.44%. This means that the major section of the hospital is composed of recently recruited employees. Third in the sequence is the range between 11 and 20 years of experience with 15.56%, followed by respondents below one year with 11.1% while those above 21 years and above were the fewest with 6.67%. This means that majority of the respondents would probably be young and easily relate to advances in technology in their specific area of expertise.

On the issue of stock outs, 48.89% of the respondents strongly agreed that there are experienced stock outs in the hospital, 22.22% respondents agreed, 15.55% disagreed on the occurrence of stock outs, 8.88% neither agreed nor disagreed while 4.44% strongly disagreed that the hospital experiences stock outs.

On the replenishment period, 51.56% of the respondent received their replenishment between 14 to 21 days, 22.22% believe replenishment after 21 days, 15.56% believe replenishment occur between the first and seventh day, 11.11% believe that replenishment occurred between day 7 and day 14.

The efficiency of the hospital’s overall sourcing process was viewed as average as its score had the highest response with 44.44%, followed by very poor at 22.22%, 20.00% responded that the sourcing process was poor, 13.34% rated the sourcing process as good while none rated it as very good.

The existing number of suppliers should fit to the organization’s plan. 45.58% of the respondents rated the suppliers as average, followed by 24.73% that indicated the suppliers were poor, 20.49% of the respondents indicated the suppliers as good, and 5.65% of the respondents rated the suppliers as very good while 3.53% of the respondents rated the suppliers as very poor.

In ordering electronically, 47.7% of the respondents disagreed that ordering is done electronically, while 35.34% neither agreed nor disagreed, 12.37% agreed while 4.6% strongly disagreed that ordering is done electronically. No respondent indicated that they strongly agreed that Kenyatta National Hospital orders electronically.

The organization aims to maintain supplier relationships electronically but 51.24% of the respondents disagreed, 27.56% strongly disagreed while 15.9% neither agreed nor disagreed followed by 8.13% who agreed while 0.7% strongly agreed that the hospital maintains its relationship electronically.

On rating the hospital suppliers, 54.06% of the respondents indicated that the efficiency of the suppliers was average followed by 19.43 who indicated that the suppliers were good while 12.01% of the respondents indicated that it was very good and poor, while 3.18% rated the suppliers’ efficiency as very poor.

Sufficient credible information is needed while selecting the best supplier. 75.27% of the respondents disagreed that the organization has enough supplier information, 10.6% neither agrees nor disagrees, 8.84% of the respondents indicated that they strongly disagreed, while 3.53% agrees and 1.77% strongly agrees that Kenyatta National Hospital has enough information whilst selecting the suppliers.

Upload Your Assignment

The researcher also analyzed the number or frequency of visits to the suppliers and found out that 43.81% of the respondents indicated that the frequency was neither frequent nor rare, followed by 15.9% who believed the frequency was frequent, 14.13% indicated very rare and 4.59% indicated that the frequency was very frequent.

On the awarding of tenders based on available information, 51.24% of the respondents disagreed followed by 27.56% which strongly disagreed. 15.9% neither agree nor disagree whether suppliers are selected based on available information while 8.13% of the respondents agreed with 0.7% respondents strongly agreed that supplier selection is based on the available supplier information.

The efforts by the hospital to increase supplier information were also rated. The highest percentage of respondents indicated the efforts as average with 41.34%, followed by 32.16% rated the efforts as poor, while 13.43% rated the efforts as good, 12.01% respondents rated the efforts as very poor and 1.06% rated the efforts as very good.

On the issue of sourcing from the most cost effective supplier, 51.54% of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, followed by 27.56% who disagreed. 15.9% agreed while 8.07% strongly agreed while 5.65% strongly disagreed.

The researcher also aimed to analyze value cost relationship and found out that 63.07% of the respondents indicated that the relationship was average while 22.26% of the respondents indicated that the relationship was poor. 7.08% indicated that the relationship was very poor. 5.65% rated it as good while 1.4% of the respondents indicated that it was very good.

Maddox Smith

Hey,
Greetings for the day !
Hope that you’re well !

We want to introduce ourselves as a team of professionals who are into academic writing for the last 10+ years. We can provide assignment assistance in all subjects. Our experts can provide solutions across all the topics right from Management, HR, Marketing, Finance & Accounts, Statistics, IT, childcare, nursing, law, and general writing. We provide plagiarism free work and also send a ‘Turnitin’ report along with completed work. Our services are available at reasonable cost; we entertain amendment requests from clients without any extra charges.

Our Feature Included

Ø Every assignment includes graphical representation like pie chart, bar graph, smart art and all.
Ø Free 0% plagiarism report
Ø Expert team for technical work as well.
Ø On time delivery
Ø Multiple rework facility
Ø Huge team of expert in each subject
Ø Referencing like: Harvard, APA, MLA, Oscola, automatic referencing all are familiar to our experts.

Subject we cover: Math , finance, economics, accounts, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, IT, Computer science, electrical and electronics engineering, history, geography, political science, sociology, physiology, philosophy, biology, microbiology, biotechnology, biotechnology, B-school assignments, project report, psychology, nursing assignments, medical assignments, Tourists and travelling assignments all kinds of dissertation and so on

Best Regards:
Oz Paper Help
WhatsApp:+1 585-666-2225
Email:ozpaperhelp@gmail.com
www.ozpaperhelp.com
www.cheapassignmenthelp.co.uk
www.freeassignmenthelp.com

https://www.ozpaperhelp.com/
1 Step 1
GET INSTANT ASSIGNMENT HELP BY PHD EXPERTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
keyboard_arrow_leftPrevious
Nextkeyboard_arrow_right