A STUDY ON EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE IN

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS AT MADRAS

ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL LTD

By

N.ABBAS AZHARUDDIN

REG NO : 42809631001

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to the

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree

of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

LORD VENKATESHWARA ENGINEERING COLLEGE,

KANCHEPURAM DISTRICT-631 605.

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “ A STUDY ON THE EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE

IN MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AT MADRAS ENGINEERING
INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LTD, MAHINDRA WORLD CITY, KANCHEPURAM
DISTRICT “ is the bonafide work of N.ABBAS AZHARUDDIN who carried out the
project work under mysupervision.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

INTERNAL GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Submitted to project and viva examination held on______________________

 ABSTRACT

The project entitled “ A study on the employee performance in measurement

system analysis at Madras Engineering Industrial pvt Ltd” is to identify and evaluate the
performance of the workers of MEIL . It also tries to study various factors that lead to
performance of a workers. In this era of globalization human resource is considered as the
most important asset of an organization. As more and more companies have started to realize
that a happy employee is a productive employee, they have look for way to improve the
performance skill matrix were considered to get an overall opinion so as to asses the
performance of the workers. As MEIL is a manufacturing industry it has to maintain quality
of the product in measurements. Through this study it is checked whether the company
provided a enough training to the employees or not.

As in every study data collection is an important aspect without which an original

study is not possible. To conduct this study primary and secondary data are collected. The
primary data were collected by measuring performance among workers. The sample size
chosen was 3. . The secondary data were collected through company’s record and websites.

For analyzing the data graphical method were used. Skill matrix was prepared with
the collected data on the basis of analysis. It is found that the performance of workers in
MEIL is not an average one and many aspect need to be changed. By analyzing the findings
drawn from the study, certain suggestion and recommendation are made.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With pleasure I express my gratitude and thanks to all the authorities who
effectively guided me to make this project successfully.

At the outset, I thank Mr.G.KESAV YADAV, M.A., B.Ed., our beloved chairman
and, Dr.C.SATHYAMURTHI, M.E., B.E., (MECH) our principal, for their valuable
support and advice throughout our Post Graduate course.

I extend my gratitude to Ms C.K.HEMALATHA,M.Com,MBA., M.Phil,Ph.D.,

Assistant professor and HOD, Department of Management Studies who has been a constant
source of motivation. Her suggestion helped me to enhance the analytical ability to interpret
the data well.

I am extremely grateful to my internal guide, Mr. SENTHILKUMAR MBA. ,who

has given valuable advice, sustained interest and substantial help extended towards me for the
completion of this work successfully.

I owes special thanks Mr.SHIVA M.com.,giving me a chance to carry out my project

and other valuable information and suggestion to carry out my study. I am thankful to other
staff members for their kind help.

I also thank all faculty members of the Department of Management Studies, Lord
Venkateshwara College of Engineering for their encouragement and support.

Above all, I thank God and Parents for showering their blessings to finish his humble
piece of work.
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that project entitled “ A STUDY ON EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE

IN MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AT MADRAS INDUSTRIAL

PRIVATE LTD, MAHINDRA WORLD CITY, KANCHEPURAM DISTRICT”

submitted for the M.B.A Degree is my original work and the dissertation has not formed the

basis for the award of any degree, associateship, fellowship or any other similar titles.

Place:

Date:

Signature of the Student

N.ABBAS AZHARUDDIN
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER No CONTENTS PAGE NO

I INTRODUCTION

1.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY

1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

1.3 OBJECT OF THE STUDY

1.4 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLGY

II PROFILES UNDER STUDY

2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE

III REVIEW OF LITERATURE

IV DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION

V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

5.1 FINDINGS

5.2 SUGGESTION

5.3 CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF TABLES
S. No DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1 Table for average chart

2 Table for range chart

3 Table for average chart after training

4 Table for range chart after training

 LIST OF CHARTS

S. No DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1 Average chart

2 Range chart

3 Average chart after training

4 Range chart after training

 CHAPTER - I

INTRODUCTION

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

DEFINITION:

According to Max Moullin “performance is evaluating how well organization are

managed and the value they deliver for customer and other stakeholders”.
According to Adams Kennarley and Neely “ The process of quantifying the
efficiency and effectiveness of past action”.

MEANING:
A process of assessing progress towards achieving predetermined goals including
information on the efficiency with which resources are transformed into goods and services,
the quality of those outputs and outcomes of a program activity compared to its intented
purpose and effectiveness of government operate in in terms of their specific contribution to
program objectives.

OBJECTIVES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Performance measures indicate the measure of success in the organization. Ray F.
Boedecker has identified and listed seven objectives of performance measures.
The seven objectives are:

1. To establish baseline measures and reveal trends.

2. To determine which processes need to be improved.

3. To indicate process gains and losses.

4. To provide information for individual and team evaluation.

5. To compare goals with actual performance.

6. To provide information to make informed decisions.

 7. To determine the overall performance of the organization.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The items to be measured
The performance measures of an organization includes the performance measures of its each
functional elements such as customer, production, supplier, research and development,
human resources, marketing/ sales and administration. The below table showing some
important indicators to measure the various functional elements of the organization
Criteria Indicators/ determinants
1. Customer Number of customer’s complaints
Number of warranty claims
Number of suggestion per employee
Number of suggestions implemented
% returns by customers
Customer satisfaction index
Time to resolve complaints
Mean time to repair
2. Production Productivity = output / input
Labor productivity=result / labor cost
Capital productivity=result / capital cost
Material productivity=result / material cost
Effectiveness=actual result / expected result
Efficiency=expected cost / actual cost
Revenue growth
Number of break downs
Actual processing time vs waiting times
Lead time for product development
3. Suppliers Service rating
On-time delivery
Quality performance
Spc chart
Billing accuracy
Average lead time
 Just-in-time delivery target
4. Research and development New product time to market
Time needed to launch a new product
Design change order
Cost estimating error
% of sale from new products

5. Human resources % personnel turnover

% absence due to illness
Employee satisfaction index
number of training hours per employee
number of active teams
number of suggestions / grievances
% safety incidents
% environmental incidents

6. Marketing/ sales Sales growth

Market growth
% delivery completed
Sales expense to revenue
New customers
Sales income to number of sales people
Order accuracy
 7. Administration Revenue growth
Revenue per employee
Expense to revenue
Cost of poor quality
% of payroll distribution on time
Office equipment up-time
Order entry / billing accuracy
Invoicing speed

Requirements of the performances measures:

The organization can adopt any of the performance measures listed above, depending
on its requirements. However, for successful implementation, the selected measures should
try to satisfy the following requirements.

 Performance measures should be simple and understandable to the users.

 Instead of using many performance measures, it is preferable to use little

number of key measures.

 While selecting measures, one should select the measures which are more
relevant to customers.

 Performance measures should focus on continuous improvement, prevention

and corrective action.

 Cost related performance measures should preferred to better understand and

best financial to the firm.

 The performance measures selected / uses should be transparent and visible to

all the employees.

 The performance measures should be time-based, preferably measures should

be based on hourly, daily, or weekly rather than monthly or quarterly.

 The result of the performance measures should balanced the interest of all
stakeholders.
Strategy for implementing performance measures:

Usually the selection, processing, implementation, and monitoring of performance

measures are carried out by the quality council. They integrate the measures with the total
system of measures. To facilitate this, they utilize the core values, goals, mission, vision, and
policy statements of the organization. This activity will be translated into the creation of the
strategic measurement systems.

The strategic measurements include the few or more of the performance measures listed
below. These selected measures become the base on which the organization revolves. These
measurements are tracked regularly to show trends, identify problem areas, and allocate
resources. The quality council should monitor the current activities and plan the future
activities at regular intervals.

Typical strategic measurement system

Criteria Measurement system

Quality % increase in quality grade

% reduction in failure rate

% reduction in cost of poor quality

Reduction in number of customer’s complaints

% reduction of rejects and scraps

% reduction of safety and environmental incidents

Throughout time Reduction in throughput time

Increase in manufacturing cycle effectiveness

Reduction in number of breakdowns

Increase in availability

Increase in invoicing speed

Reduction in time between order and delivery

Productivity Increase in productivity

Increase in effectiveness

Increase in efficiency
 Increase in revenue growth

Increase in sales and market growth

% reduction in personnel turnover

Added value Increase in revenue per employee

Increase in gross and net added value

TECHNIQUES FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The commonly used techniques for presenting performance measures are:

1. Time series trend graphs,

2. Quality awards,

3. Capability index,

4. Taguchi’s loss function,

5. Cost of poor quality, and

6. Control charts.

Time series trend graphs:

In this series graph, the time (in days, weeks, quarter, etc.) is representing on the X-axis and
the performance measures is represented on the Y-axis and the performance measures will
take place.

Quality award:

the criteria for any quality award should include leadership, strategic planning, customer and
market focus, information and analysis, human resource focus, process management, and
business results. Therefore quality awards [ such as Malcom Baldrige national quality Award
(MBNQA) for U.S. organization – similar to Oscar Award for U.S. films] can effectively
measure the performance of the TQM effort on an annual basis.
Capability index:

It is the ratio of the tolerance to the capability. There are two measures:

 Cp: It measures the ability of the process to meet specification.

 Cpk : It indicates the centering of the process on the target.

Taguchi’s quality loss function:

This technique is based on the fact that quality loss occurs when a product’s specification
deviates from target or nominal value. The taguchi’s loss function will perform based on U-
shaped curve.

Cost of poor quality:

quality related cost are costs incurred by an organization to ensure that the products / services
it provides conform to customer requirements. In other words quality cost are the sum of
money spent on ensuring that customer requires are met and also the cost wasted through
failing to achieve the desired level of quality. Thus quality cost is the cost of not meeting the
customer’s requirement.

Control chart:

The control charts are powerful tools for the diagnosis of quality problems. A control chart is
simply a run chart to which horizontal lines called control limits are added, this chart consist
of the following limits that are upper control limit(UCL), central line(CL) and lower control
limit(LCL). In this chart X-axis consist of quality characteristics and Y-axis consist of time
or number of subgroups.

Control charts were first proposed by Walter Shewhart at Bell Laboratories in the 1920s and
were strongly advocated by Deming. Control limits are chosen statistically so that there is a
high probability (generally greater than 0.99) that points will fall between these limits if the
process is in control. Control limits make it easier to interpret patterns in a run chart draw
conclusions about the state of control.

If sample values fall outside the control limits or if non-random patterns occur in the chart,
then assignable causes may be affecting the process and the process is not stable. The process
should be examined and corrective action taken as appropriate. If evaluation and corrections
are done in real time, then the chance of producing non-conformance products is minimized.
Thus as problem solving tool, control charts allow operators to identify quality problems in
processes as they occur. Control charts only give the signal when the process tends to go out
of control and cannot determine the source of the problem. Operators, supervisors and
engineers may have to resort to other problem solving tools to seek the root cause

1.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY:

• To evaluate the performance of the employees in measuring systems.

• To improve the performance of the individual appraiser.

• To maintain high quality level.

• To increase the efficiency of the employees.

• To analyze the performance of the employees according to the knowledge and

experience.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

• To help each employee understand more about their role and become clear about their
functions.

• To be instrumental in helping employees to better understand their strengths and

weakness with respect to their role and functions in the organization.

• To help in identifying the developmental needs of employees, given their role and
function.

• To increase mutuality between employees and their supervisors so that every

employee feels happy to work. Their supervisor and thereby contributes their
maximum to the organization.

• To assist in a variety of personnel decisions by periodically generating data regarding

each employee.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

Primary Objective:
• To study the effectiveness of performance in measurement analysis among the
employees in the MADRAS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.
Secondary Objective:
• To analyze the various performance in measurement system.
• To find out the impact of the existing performance in measurement system.
• To analyze the remedial measures given to the employees
1.4 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

• Time period is the restricted to 45days only.

• The collection of data was not possible during the working hours.
 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Research Design: The researcher used Descriptive Research in this study. Descriptive
research is an attempt by the researcher to discover causes even when they cannot control the
variables.
Sources of information:
Primary data:
The researcher used Primary data for collecting information.
Secondary data:
Journals and Books.
Sampling technique:
The researcher had adopted Random sampling technique.
Random sampling:
A simple random sample is one in which every items from a population has the same chance
of selection as every other item.
Sample Size:
The sample size chosen for the study was 3 employees.
Sample area:
 The sample covered in this study was the employees of MADRAS
ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.
Period of study:
This project study was conducted during the period of July – August 2010.
Tools for Analysis:
• Range analysis
• Graphical analysis
Tools for presentation:
• During the analysis stage other statistical tools like tabulation were used to
tabulate the data collected.
• Range chart
• Average chart
Reason for selecting average and range chart:
 Here the project considered variables (performance characteristics of employee) so
average and range charts are selected.
 Average and Range chart are the control chart, this charts only give the signal when
the process tends to go out of control.
CHAPTER - II
PROFILE UNDER STUDY
2.1 Industrial profile

MEIL was established in 1966 by Mr. E. K Parthasarathy . After post graduate

engineering studies in the UK and rich work experience in major automobile engineering
companies of the time in the UK and Europe, Mr Parthasarathy returned to India to set up
manufacturing operations for automobile ancillaries in the country. Chennai ( then Madras )
was the city in which Mr Parthasarathy received his early education; it was also the hub of
automobile manufacture in the south of India and it was logical for the company to be
incorporated here.

In 1982, Sundaram-Clayton Ltd. (SCL), a TVS group company and market leader in India in
the manufacture of air brake systems for medium and heavy commercial vehicles, outsourced
the machining of manual slack adjuster bodies (MSA), to MEIL. The Company has focused
on the manufacture of slack adjusters since then and is now one of the largest manufacturer
of MSAs in the world with annual production exceeding one million pieces. The Company
markets its MSA directly.

Legislation enacted in Europe and North America in 1996, mandated that trucks, tractor-
trailer combinations and passenger buses with air brake systems should be fitted with
Automatic Slack Adjusters (ASA) instead of Manual Slack Adjusters, as an original
equipment. MEIL developed the product indigenously in 1998 and, in partnership with John
Bruce who has considerable marketing and logistics experience in the global auto ancillary
sector, commenced its global export operations . John Bruce & Company UK was formed in
1999 specifically to market and distribute the MEI ASAs throughout the World.

Legislation requiring Indian OEMs to use ASA is expected in 2006 will expand the market
for ASA in India. MEIL, with its experience in manufacturing ASA for the international
market is well positioned to supply and service domestic requirements for ASA

2.2 COMPANY PROFILE:

Madras Engineering Industries Private Limited (MEIL) was incorporated in Chennai

in 1966 to serve the needs of the automobile ancillary industry. Commencing operations with
contract machining of automotive components for major component manufacturers in South
India, it has now become a major global source for the manufacture of slack adjusters for air
brake systems and a tier 1 supplier to on road heavy duty vehicle manufacturers in India.

Export operations of MEIL which commenced with a single customer in Europe in 1989,
now include a comprehensive range of slack adjusters used by reputed companies in the
United Kingdom and Europe, the United States of America, Canada, the Middle East, Africa,
Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia. MEIL slack adjusters meet SAE J 1462
requirements. The current range of MEIL slack adjusters finds over 400 applications

Sales turnover in 2004-2005 was Rs 650 million ( USD 15 million ) and employee strength
was 218. MEIL is poised to capture new opportunities in the international and domestic
markets and expects to register rapid top line growth in the coming years
Vision and mission

The Company's vision is to establish itself as the leading global player in braking
system components with a significant presence in national and international OEM and
replacement markets. Its mission is to achieve excellence in manufacturing and a leading
market share, globally.

Employment Policy & Employee Relations

MEIL shall encourage positive attitudes and appropriate work culture in its employees
through the right combination of recruitment criteria, ongoing training and a system of
recognition and rewards for excellent performance that promotes productivity and
interpersonal relations.

MEIL employs trained and competent professionals at every level. Emphasis is placed on
technical competence at operative entry level and the company provides in-house training to
all operatives and supervisory staff in conjunction with industry associations especially on
quality orientation.

Compensation levels compare with the best in the industry and employee relations have
always been cordial.

PRODUCTS

MEIL slack adjusters have found wide acceptance all over the globe and it is matter of
satisfaction that the company's products have been developed indigenously. MEIL holds 2
world-wide patents for its products . Development work on some other patentable products is
in progress

MSA (MANUAL SLACK ADJUSTER)

How it works - general principles:

In a S-cam type foundation brake, the final link between the pneumatic system and the
foundation brake is the brake adjuster. The arm of the brake adjuster is fastened to the push
rod of the chamber with a clevis and the spline end is installed on the brake camshaft.
Primarily, the brake adjuster is a lever that converts the linear force of the air chamber push
rod into a torque which turns the brake camshaft and applies the brake.

Two types of brake adjusters are in use; manual type brake type adjusters, which periodically
require a manual adjustment; and self-adjusting brake adjusters, which automatically adjust
during normal service braking applications. All brake adjusters use the worm and gear
principle and fundamentally differ only in their torque limit specification.

ASA (AUTOMATIC SLACK ADJUSTER)

Need for Automatic Slack Adjusters

The process of adjusting the shoe clearance manually is cumbersome and time consuming, as
we will be seeing now. The brake adjustments need several steps. Jack up the wheels and
keep rotating the wheel. Then press the worm shaft clock completely and rotate worm shaft
until the wheel locks. After this, rotate the worm shaft in the reverse direction until the wheel
starts rotating freely. Then turn the worm shaft slightly and release the lock. Repeat this
process for all the wheels. As it is difficult to maintain uniform clearance on all wheels and
this can result in vehicle pulling to one side while braking.

Not only this process is time consuming and cumbersome but also keeps the vehicle off the
road frequently, even though it is for about an hour. For example, when the truck is operated
in the city roads, the clearance has to be adjusted once in 2 or 3 days and for long distance
operation once in 10 or 15 days. It is seeing that until now the only available way to tackle
this problem of shoe clearance is to manually adjust.

The only solution to overcome this problem is to use Automatic slack adjusters, which will
maintain the pre-determined lining gap in all braking wheels by automatic adjustment of gap
to compensate the lining wear due regular usage.

MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

MEIL has two state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities ( including CNC turning centers and
CNC Horizontal machining centers) in and around Chennai and a third is being set up in the
export oriented zone on the outskirts of Chennai.

A dedicated unit for the manufacturing assembling and testing of MSAs is located at Unit I in
Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai.

The manufacture of slack adjuster components and the assembly of ASAs are done at Unit II
in Maraimalai Nagar, on the outskirts of Chennai. Unit III at Mahindra World City Chennai, a
Specialized Economic Zone (SEZ) will begin operation in 2006.

MEIL plants have test facilities to conduct endurance and life cycle tests conforming to SAE
standards as well as customer specific standards in its full fledged laboratory. The lab is
equipped with sophisticated metrology equipment including a three co-ordinate measuring
machine to check and ensure quality of its products at all stages of manufacture. Chemical
and physical tests for raw materials, bars, castings and forgings and bought out components
are tested in house. Where required, tests carried out at reliable and certified laboratories

QUALITY ASSURANCE

MEIL is dedicated to continuous quality improvement and will make no compromise in

delivering products conforming to customer specifications. MEIL products shall be second to
none in achieving global quality standards in their range of manufacture In keeping with this
policy, MEIL has put in place, rigorous quality control procedures to ensure the supply of
defect free products including inspection of incoming material, control over the
manufacturing process, and finished product testing.
CERTIFICATION

MEIL Unit II is accredited with QS 9000 and MEI Unit I is accredited with ISO 9000 - 2000
QSS by TUV

MARKETING

MEI handles markting of its Manual Slack Adjusters directly from its plant at Ambattur for
all domestic and overseas customers.

MEI is marketing Automatic Slack Adjusters through John Bruce (UK) Ltd. for its overseas
customers worldwide.

For the domestic market MEI Automatic Slack Adjusters and Self Setting Automatic Slack
Adjusters (SS - ASA) are marketed from its plants in Chennai - INDIA.

CHAPTER - III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Drake Beam Morin, Inc., “Performance Appraisals Surveys Results and

Analysis,”(New York, 1983) says the employee attitude survey where the results indicated
that employees with development plans were more satisfied with the overall performance
Appraisal system than employees without development plans (77% satisfied with
Development plans versus 60% satisfied without development plan). Performance Appraisal,
whether standing alone or part of a Performance Management System, remains almost
universal practice in larger organizations. It has long since had its severe critics, summed up
twenty years ago by David Ashton and Mark Ester by- Smith (1979).

Napier and Latham (1986) found people were clear as to the purpose of appraisal, believed in
the instrument, and that supervisors should conduct them once a year. Indeed, they enjoyed
their own appraisal. But appraisal But appraisal seldom took place and had no effect on the
employee’s status. Appraisers were not rewarded. Indeed, if the appraiser sought to use
incidents to support unfavorable judgments with superiors, it was perceived as leading to
decreased promotion possibilities for them’.

As Meyer (Meyer, et al 1996) said they want to consider themselves above average, so it is
not surprising that they will suffer some loss of positive feelings when they are told they are
just ‘up to the job’ Perhaps, suggests Pearce and Porter, all those but in the top rank feel de-
motivated after appraisal.

In the 1990’s most of the perceived difficulties associated with appraisal have been
concerned with issues related to individual managers, or appraises. A review of recent texts in
Human Resource Management (Beaumont 1993, Marching ton and Wilkinson 1996; Goss
1994; Harrison 1993; Price 1997; Sparrow and Hiltrop 1994; Torrington and Hall, 1995;
1998) revealed the following issues. Many of these cited below are reviewed in Grint (1993).

Sofer (1975), appraisal also fits into this ideological’ framework, but for him the purpose is to
transfer structural inadequacies and failure to gain compliance from employees as they
grapple with these to the faults of the individuals. Thus it assists employees as they grapple
with these with these, to the faults of the individuals. Thus it assists managers in deploying
Etixoni’s (1975) “normative” control. Indeed, engendering guilt/ shame rather than praise
was a feature of most appraisal interviews the writer has observed in training appraisers.
Lawrence and others (1976) have suggested that the ritual purposes of management
development systems and hence, a fortiori appraisal systems which play a central part in such
systems, extends to reaffirming the myth of the career, and the possibility of upward
mobility. Appraisal demonstrates the availability of rewards the achiever and guilt as a
punishment for the underachiever.

There is little research as yet on the belief systems of management development and appraisal
though the work of Eden et al (Eden, Jones and Simon 1979) offers some possible ways of
approaching it. Indeed, it is usually reported that managers give general assent to the
suggested procedure as “a good thing” Pym (1973). However, Judy Marshall and Rosemary
Stewart (1981) have published the results of an investigation which through some lights upon
manager’s beliefs in this area. What this shows are that at least some managers. And maybe
many do not hold beliefs that are consonant with conventional management development
appraisal systems. As we shall see, in particular, they do not management development
appraisal systems. As we shall see, in particular, they do not hold the change is possible for
their subordinates.

CHAPTER – IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Skill Matrix;
Skill matrix, it is a matrix which will provide different knowledge and skill set of the
employees in the organization. Skill matrix contains various skills that are enforced by the
organization for the betterment of job and also for the working task. The skill matrix
contains the following parameters of knowledge as shown below.

 Operating and setup instruction for pre machine.

 Operating and setup instruction for finish machine.
 Operating and setup instruction for CNC.
 Operating and setup instruction for Dolphi.
 Operating and setup instruction for Makino.
  Operating and setup instruction for Horizontal milling machine.
 Operating and setup instruction for Radial drilling machine.
 Operating and setup instruction for Nipple hole drilling machine.
 Operating and setup instruction for Short peening machine.
 CNC programming.
 ISO awareness.
 ISO 27001 awareness.
 ISO 27001 internal auditor.
 ISO 14001 awareness.
 ISO 14001 internal auditor.

The above are the different matrices which will be estimated for the leading employees in the
organization. And it will be tabulated as skill matrix. From the skill matrix, top management
will give preference to the future work force for the employees. Based on the skill set, the
employees will be promoted, by considering their performance in the organizational activity.
The below showing the skill matrix of employees in the Madras Engineering Industrial
Private Ltd(MEIL).

From the above skill matrix the projector decides to evaluate the performance of three
employees who has same level of knowledge in all the quality measurement systems and they
are also having similar designation. Taken appraisers from quality department and they are
working has quality inspector in the MEIL.

The project decides to find the performance of the three employees who having similar skill
set in all the area in the performance measures. It is a challenged one to evaluate the
performance of the quality inspector in the organization who having similar knowledge and
skill set.

The selected three employee induced in analyzing the bore diameter of a Automatic slack
adjuster by bore dial gauge. The type of gauge has analog (which is a manual type of
gauge). Here, this type of analog gauge is used for analyzing the performance of the
employees manually.
By using the bore dial gauge, the bore diameter of the automatic slack adjuster has been
determined. Here, ten samples of parts were given for the analysis. Everyone have analyzed
the given sample, three trails have been made for the analysis of performance.

From the determined data, average chart and range chart have been performed has shown
below.

AVERAGE CHART DATA:

Table – 4.1 TABLE FOR AVERAGE CHART

Apprais
62.036 62.012 62.017 62.013 61.991 62.001 61.996 62.003 62.018 61.961
er A
Apprais
62.042 62.015 62.014 62.010 61.997 62.002 62.003 62.000 62.012 61.959
er B
Apprais
62.037 62.013 62.016 62.015 61.994 62.011 62.008 62.001 62.016 61.987
er C
62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011 62.011
UCL X
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001 62.001
LCL X
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

The above are the data’s for average chart, it consist of the following terms

 Average data’s for appraiser A, B and C.

 Upper control limits (UCLX).

 Lower control limit (LCLX).

4.1 - Appraiser Average Chart

Result :

In Appraiser chart all the points are out of control limits and there is a need of training for
employees

RANGE CHART DATA:

Table – 4.2 TABLE FOR RANGE CHART

Appraiser
0.009 0.013 0.006 0.0028 0.013 0.016 0.014 0.003 0.008 0.004
A
Appraiser
0.005 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.002
B
Appraiser
0.019 0.01 0.016 0.023 0.006 0.023 0.018 0.004 0.011 0.01
C

UCL R 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024
The above are the data’s for range (R) chart, it consist of the following terms

 Range data’s for appraiser A,B and C.

 Upper control limit (UCLX).

4.2 - Range Chart

Result :

In Range chart all the points are within the upper control limit and there is a difference in
performance of appraiser C when compared to appraiser A &

CHAPTER – V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
5.1 FINDINGS:

From the data analysis and interpretation, it is found that there is a performance

variation of appraiser C when compared to appraiser A and appraiser B.

 In the average chart, there is not much variation in the performance of the appraisers.

But, in the range chart, it was found that there was a vast variation between performance of

appraiser C when compared to appraisers A and B.

By the analysis, it is found that there is no error in the instrument, the variation in

performance is because of the following

Root causes for variation;

 Zero setting error.

 Wrong instrument handling.

 Wrong value noted.

 Instrument awareness is less

 5.2 SUGGESTIONS:

Since , it has found that the performance of appraiser C various with that of appraiser A and

B. some corrective action has to be taken to improve appraiser C’s performance .the

following corrective action can be taken in order to improve its performance

Corrective action:

 Training for zero setting.

 Modified the instrument locator.

 Training for measured value.

Training for instrument.

Performance after corrective action

After training the employee in instrument awareness and handling. Again the

analysis was conducted for the same number of samples as experiment did before. Finally

results are tabulated as shown below.

AVERAGE CHART DATA:

TABLE - 4.3 TABLE FOR AVERAGE CHART AFTER TRAINING

Appraiser
62.036 62.012 62.017 62.013 61.991 62.001 61.996 62.003 62.018 61.961
A
Appraiser
62.042 62.015 62.014 62.010 61.997 62.002 62.003 62.000 62.012 61.959
B
Appraiser
62.043 62.013 62.016 62.014 61.994 62.001 62.005 62.001 62.016 61.975
C

UCL X 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105 62.0105

LCL X 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014 62.0014
The above are the data’s for average chart, it consist of the following terms

 Average data’s for appraiser A,B and C.

 Upper control limit (UCLX).

 Lower control limit (LCLX).

4.3 - Appraiser Average Chart after training

Result:

In Appraiser chart all the points are out of control limits. But, the performance of the
appraisers is equal compare to before experiments.
 RANGE CHART DATA:
TABLE – 4.4 TABLE FOR RANGE CHART AFTER
TRAINING

Appraiser A 0.009 0.013 0.006 0.0028 0.013 0.016 0.014 0.003 0.008 0.004

Appraiser B 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.002

Appraiser C 0.011 0.01 0.016 0.01 0.006 0.014 0.009 0.004 0.011 0.012

UCL R 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

The above are the data’s for range (R) chart, it consist of

the following terms

 Range data’s for appraiser A, B and C.

 Upper control limits (UCLX).

4.4 - Range Chart after training

Result :

In Range chart all the points are within the upper control

limit. Here the appraiser’s performances are almost the

same.
5.3 CONCLUSION:
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Prof.K.Shridhara Bhat, total quality management, 1st Edition, 2009.

• V.S.P Rao, Human Resource Management, 2nd Edition, Excel Books, 2008.

• K. Aswathappa, Human Resource and Personnel Management, 4th Edition, Tata

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, 2000.

• Kothari.C.R, Research Methodology, 2nd Edition, and New Age International

limited, New Delhi, 2000.

• Gupta.S.P, Gupta.M.P, Business Statistics, 14th Edition, Sultan Chand & Son

Educational Publishers, New Delhi,2006.