2012年1月31日星期二

ASQ Influential Voices 2012

I am honor to be invited by Mr. Laurel Nelson-Rowe (Managing Director of ASQ) to be one of ASQ Influential Voices bloggers at the end of Dec 2011. ASQ Influential Voices is a panel of influential and digitally active members of the quality community and aims to elevate members of quality community and raise awareness of quality around the world. In the beginning (2011), the Influential Voices program featured 18 quality professionals from different industries around the world and Influential Voices bloggers updated their own blogs with responses to a post from ASQ's CEO, Paul Borawski each month.


The objective of Influential Voices is aligned with that of my blog. My blog have started since 2007. Because many HKSQ members were too busy to attend HKSQ events, I had an idea to share those events to them through internet. Then I found that blogging is a very good sharing platform. Moreover, I would like to share my knowledge through the participation of different quality related trainings, seminars and conferences to HKSQ members and quality professionals in the world. Social media such as LinkedIn, Facebook and twitter were found to be suitable distribution channels for the purpose.



I try to interpret "Influential Voices" that means "the power to make people aware". Since we are in a quality community, Influential Voices indicates that different quality voices could be consolidated from different quality professionals in the world, which forms a power to enhance people's awareness on the Value of Quality.


It is my pleasure to join ASQ Influential Voices program in 2012. Even I will receive an honorarium from ASQ (in terms of coupons for ASQ books, recertification units and Quality Press) for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.


Reference:

ASQ: The Global Voice of Quality - http://asq.org/voice-of-quality/index.html

A View from the Q - http://asq.org/blog/

ASQ LinkedIn group - http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=3618260&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr

ASQ Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/ASQ

Twitter / @ASQ/ASQ Influential Voices - https://twitter.com/#!/ASQ/asq-influential-voices



2012年1月28日星期六

HKSAR CE Candidates' Capability - Overall Summary (以品質管理原則看特首候選人能力的調查(總體概要))

After survey design, questionnaire distribution, data collection and analysis, an overall summary had been consolidated below.


The details of Survey Design was located at http://qualityalchemist.blogspot.com/2012/01/hksar-ce-candidates-capability-survey.html


Overall Summary

The questionnaires weredistributed via email to 1053 professionals. The response rate was about 7% (73 valid reply). The survey period was from 1 to 14 Jan 2012 and three reminder emails were followed.


The participants' background information were shown as follows.

Participants at the Top and Senor Management Level was about 71%.

Participants having more than 10 years working experience was about 82%.

Participants serviced in sectors of Service, Manufacturing and Government/Non-profit/Univerity was about 95%.


The codes used in this analysis were given again.

HKSAR Chief Executive Candidates 2012 on 1st Jan 2012 were:

- Mr. Henry TANG Ying-yen (唐英年) (HT)

- Mr. LEUNG Chun-ying (梁振英) (CY)

- Mr. Albert HO Chun-yan (何俊仁) (AH)

- Mr. Frederick FUNG Kin-kee (馮檢基) (FF)



Eight questions designed in the survey by adopting the Eight Quality Principles (code) were shown below:

一、市民為重 (Customer Focus) (CF)

二、領導才能 (Leadership) (LD)

三、全民參與 (Involvement of People) (IP)

四、流程方法 (Process Approach ) (PA)

五、系統管理 (System Approach to Management) (SM)

六、持續改善 (Continual Improvement) (CI)

七、據實決策 (Factual Approach to Decision Making) (FD)

八、互利關係 (Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships ) (MS)


The HKSAR Chief Executive (CE) Candidates' capability in each Quality Management Principle was summarized as follows.

市民為重 (Customer Focus): CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF

領導才能 (Leadership): CY » HT » AH > FF

全民參與 (Involvement of People): CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF

流程方法 (Process Approach ): CY » HT / AH / FF; HT > FF

系統管理 (System Approach to Management): CY ~> HT » AH ~ FF

持續改善 (Continual Improvement): CY » HT ~> AH ~ FF

據實決策 (Factual Approach to Decision Making): CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF

互利關係 (Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships ): CY ~ HT » AH ~ FF


Legend used in hypothesis test presentation:

"»" : statistically significant that p ~ 0.000

">" : statistically significant that p is below 0.05

"~>" : not statistically significant but p is around 0.1

"~" : not statistically significant


The details of Data Analysis was given at http://qualityalchemist.blogspot.com/2012/01/hksar-ce-candidates-capability-data.html


The mean of means in the 8 Quality Management Principles was summarized in the following table.

Seven-point likert scale used as follows:

(Capability Level: 7-Very Capable,6-Comparative Capable,5- Slightly Capable,4-Accepted Capable,3-Slightly Incapable,2-Comparative Incapable,1-Very Incapable)

(能力水平:7-非常有能力,6-比較有能力,5-稍多的能力,4-可接受的能力,3-稍遜的能力,2-比較沒能力,1-非常沒能力)


Graphical analysis for each HKSAR CE candidates was shown below.

By overlapping each candidate's capability chart, it found that CY's capability in all concerned aspects was close to score 5 indicating quality professionals believed that CY had "slightly capable" for the position of CE based on the Eight Quality Management Principles. However, HT's capability was found just acceptable. On the other hand, two democratic parties candidates' overall capability were below the acceptable level.



In addtition, data analysis for the mean of means was performed. Firstly, each candidate's data set was undergone Normality Test and all passed.



Then, ANOVA test was performed. The difference of candidates' overall capability was found statistically significant at 95% confident level.



Thus, the paired t-test was used to analyse the differences between two candidates. This procedure tested the null hypothesis that the true mean difference within pairs (md = m1 - m2) is equal to a hypothesized value (H0: md = m1 - m2 = m0). The alternative hypothesis can be left-tailed (md < m0), right-tailed (md > m0), or two-tailed (md ≠ m0).

The summary table was show below.



Ranking of the capability in "Overall Capabillity" of HKSAR CE candidates with statistically significant at 95% confident level was shown below.

CY » HT / AH / FF

HT > AH / FF

AH » FF


It concluded that CY had much higher overall capability score than the other candidates with statistically significant at 95% confident level. HT had higher score than the other two democratic parties candidates (AH and FF); moreover, AH had higher overall capability score than FF with statistically significant at 95% confident level.


(P.S. Recently, I found some young people "Born After 80" created a song for CY in Youtube voluntarily.)


Reference:

ISO 9000:2000 - Quality management systems -- Fundamentals and vocabulary

John McKenzie, Robert L.Schaefer & Elizabeth Farber (1995) "The Student Edition of MINITAB for Windows - Statistical software ... adapted for education" Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.



2012年1月26日星期四

HKSAR CE Candidates' Capability - Data Analysis (以品質管理原則看特首候選人能力的調查(數據分析))

When the survey period closed, all data were validated and analyzed. Firstly, Normality Test was performed to examine whether or not the observations followed a normal distribution. The hypotheses were shown as follows:


H0: data follow a normal distribution vs. H1: data do not follow a normal distribution


If Normality Test passes, parametric hypothesis test (2 sample t-test) would be employed to compare each candidate's capability (mean value) with 95% confidence level. If Normality Test fail, non-parametric hypothesis test (Mann-Whitney test) would be used to compare each candidate's capability (median value) with 95% confidence level.


One of the simplest versions of the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) says that if it is a random sample of size n (say, n> 30) from an infinite population finite standard deviation, then the standardized sample mean converges to a standard normal distribution or, equivalently, the sample mean approaches a normal distribution with mean equal to the population mean and standard deviation equal to standard deviation of the population divided by square root of sample size n.


73 independent responded data set were collected and CLT could be used with assumption of a normal distribution. However, all data failed the Normality Test. It may be the result of using seven-point likert scale in which each data point was an integral. Therefore, both parametric and nonparametric hypothesis test were used to exam the data sets. If same conclusion is obtained from both hypothesis tests, it would be taken as final result.



The codes used in this analysis were given again.

HKSAR Chief Executive Candidates 2012 on 1st Jan 2012 were:

- Mr. Henry TANG Ying-yen (唐英年) (HT)

- Mr. LEUNG Chun-ying (梁振英) (CY)

- Mr. Albert HO Chun-yan (何俊仁) (AH)

- Mr. Frederick FUNG Kin-kee (馮檢基) (FF)


The 8 questions using the Eight Quality Principles (code) were shown below:

一、市民為重 (Customer Focus) (CF)

二、領導才能 (Leadership) (LD)

三、全民參與 (Involvement of People) (IP)

四、流程方法 (Process Approach ) (PA)

五、系統管理 (System Approach to Management) (SM)

六、持續改善 (Continual Improvement) (CI)

七、據實決策 (Factual Approach to Decision Making) (FD)

八、互利關係 (Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships ) (MS)


Seven-point likert scale used as follows:

(Capability Level: 7-Very Capable,6-Comparative Capable,5- Slightly Capable,4-Accepted Capable,3-Slightly Incapable,2-Comparative Incapable,1-Very Incapable)

(能力水平:7-非常有能力,6-比較有能力,5-稍多的能力,4-可接受的能力,3-稍遜的能力,2-比較沒能力,1-非常沒能力)


Hypothesis test presentation:

"»" is statistical significant that p ~ 0.000

">" is statistical significant that p is below 0.05

"~>" is not statistical significant but p is around 0.1

"~" is not statistical significant


Data Analysis


一、市民為重 (Customer Focus) (CF)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Customer Focus of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):



Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Customer/Citizen Focus which was statistically significant for 95% confident level.

CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF


二、領導才能 (Leadership) (LD)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Leadership of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)


Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):



Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Leadership which was statistical significant for 95% confident level; and HT had much higher score than the other two candidates. AH was found statistically significant and had higher score than FF.

CY » HT » AH > FF


三、全民參與 (Involvement of People) (IP)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Involvement of People of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):




Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Involvement of People which was statistically significant for 95% confident level.

CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF


四、流程方法 (Process Approach ) (PA)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Process Approach of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):



Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Process Approach which was statistically significant for 95% confident level. HT had higher score than FF with statistically significant for 95% confident level.

CY » HT / AH / FF

HT > FF


五、系統管理 (System Approach to Management) (SM)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for System Approach to Management of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):


Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):


Conclusion:

It found that CY and HT had much higher score than other candidates in the System Approach to Management which was statistically significant for 95% confident level. CY had slight higher score than HT which was statistically significant for 90% confident level.

CY ~> HT » AH ~ FF


六、持續改善 (Continual Improvement) (CI)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Continual Improvement of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):


Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Continual Improvement which was statistically significant for 95% confident level. HT had higher score than AH and FF which was statistically significant for 90% confident level.

CY » HT ~> AH ~ FF


七、據實決策 (Factual Approach to Decision Making) (FD)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Factual Approach to Decision Making of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):



Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY had much higher score than other candidates in the Factual Approach to Decision Making which was statistically significant for 95% confident level.

CY » HT ~ AH ~ FF


八、互利關係 (Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships) (MS)

Data distribution of each candidate in normality test:

Boxplot (Summary) for Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships of each candidate: (The circle (+) is mean and (x) is median.)



Hypothesis test I (for different - two tailed test):


Hypothesis test II (for greater - one tailed test):



Conclusion:

It found that CY and HT had much higher score than other candidates in the Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships which was statistically significant for 95% confident level.

CY ~ HT » AH ~ FF


The overall conclusion and consolidated summary would be issued.


Reference:

John McKenzie, Robert L.Schaefer & Elizabeth Farber (1995) "The Student Edition of MINITAB for Windows - Statistical software ... adapted for education" Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.



2012年1月25日星期三

HKSAR CE Candidates' Capability - Survey Design (以品質管理原則看特首候選人能力的調查(問卷設計))

Recently, many surveys about Hong Kong citizen's perspective on HKSAR Chief Executive candidates were performed by different universities. I had already proposed to evaluate HKSAR Chief Executive capability based on Eight Quality Management Principles on 28 Nov 2011 in my blog (at: http://qualityalchemist.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post.html in Chinese). Then I conducted a survey which based on Quality Professionals' Perception to evaluate the capability of HKSAR Chief Executive (CE) candidates using the Eight Quality Management Principles.






The experiment was designed as follows:

- 8 questions designed in relation to the Eight Quality Principles with seven-point likert scale

- 3 questions for background information collection such as "Position", "Working Experience" and "Industry"


Seven-point likert scale used as follows:

(Capability Level: 7-Very Capable,6-Comparative Capable,5- Slightly Capable,4-Accepted Capable,3-Slightly Incapable,2-Comparative Incapable,1-Very Incapable)

(能力水平:7-非常有能力,6-比較有能力,5-稍多的能力,4-可接受的能力,3-稍遜的能力,2-比較沒能力,1-非常沒能力)


The 8 questions in accordance with the Eight Quality Principles (code) were shown below:

一、市民為重 (Customer Focus) (CF)

二、領導才能 (Leadership) (LD)

三、全民參與 (Involvement of People) (IP)

四、流程方法 (Process Approach ) (PA)

五、系統管理 (System Approach to Management) (SM)

六、持續改善 (Continual Improvement) (CI)

七、據實決策 (Factual Approach to Decision Making) (FD)

八、互利關係 (Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships ) (MS)


The questionnaire was designed to distribute to quality professionals included quality professional association/society members, quality professionals in manufacturing, testing & certification industry, and education institutions, as well as in related government department. It was distributed via email to 1053 professionals. The response rate was about 7% (73 valid reply). The survey period was from 1 to 14 Jan 2012 (within two weeks) and three reminder emails were followed. Before the commencement of survey, CE Primary Pan-Democrats (泛民特首候選人初選) was not performed (It was held on 8 Jan 2012.). Therefore, four candidates were considered in this survey.


HKSAR Chief Executive Candidates 2012 on 1st Jan 2012 were:

- Mr. Henry TANG Ying-yen (唐英年) (HT)

- Mr. LEUNG Chun-ying (梁振英) (CY)

- Mr. Albert HO Chun-yan (何俊仁) (AH)

- Mr. Frederick FUNG Kin-kee (馮檢基) (FF)


The participants' background information were shown as follows:


Position:

1) Top Management (e.g. CEO/VP/Director/Professor/GM) 14 (19.2%)

2) Senior Management (e.g. Sr. Manager/Manager/Consultant) 38 (52.1%)

3) Middle Management (e.g. Sr. Engineer/Teacher/Auditor) 9 (12.3%)

4) Technical Staff (e.g. Engineer) 11 (11.5%)

5) Front Line Staff (e.g. Technician) 1 (1.4%)


The Top and Senor Management was 71.3% (~71%).



Working Experience (WkEx):

1) 0yr to 5yr 5 (6.8%)

2) 6yr to 10yr 8 (11.0%)

3) 11yr to 20yr 23 (31.5%)

4) Above 20yr 37 (50.7%)


Participants had more than 10 years working experience was 82.2% (~82%).



Industry:

1) 服務業 (Service) 22 (30.1%)

2) 製造業 (Manufacturing) 29 (39.7%)

3) 金融業 (Finance) 2 (2.7%)

4) 地產業 (Land/Construction) 2 (2.7%)

5) 政府部門 / 非營利的 (Gov/Non-profit / University) 18 (24.7%)


Service, Manufacturing and Government/Non-profit/Univerity was about 94.5% (~95%).


The 8 capability survey results based on quality management principles would be analysized by using different statistical methods in "Survey Result and Analysis" and would be issued.


Reference:

ISO 9000:2000 - Quality management systems -- Fundamentals and vocabulary



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails