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.



3 則留言:

laulong 說...

我都覺得 CY 能力最高。

奇怪在泛民常說有六成市民支持,但 AH 的支持度從來下游,是甚麽原因呢?

Quality Alchemist 說...

在一般民調中,只反映市民的觀感。
在今次品質專家的調查中,反映了專家的觀感。而他們的排名是一致的。
我估計有六成市民支持的是泛民在議會的功能,而不是認同他們有能力成香港的領導者。

Quality Alchemist 說...

I would like to post a discussion with another professional on this survey as below:

Dr. Wan feedback:
The questionnaires were distributed via email to 1053 professionals. The response rate was about 7% (73 valid reply). This is far below the norm of email survey response rate. The sample size is too small to make any meaningful finding, it is especially the case for the email survey method as only those who have special interest in the outcome will respond (same problem associated with www survey). The recent survey indicates that HT is the most preferred candidate among the business, financial and commercial sector and it does ring the bell as these sectors provide jobs to the professionals and not the other way round. As they know that HT is most likely to be the next CE of HKSAR, why should they bother to respond to your survey. Your claim may eventually prove to be the one which bites the hand that feed them.

My reply to Dr. Wan:
Thanks for your response.
You are right. It has limitation on www survey. However, most participants were found mainly in top management and with more than 10/20 year experience. Their opinion is valuable to be taken as reference. You can say the result could be bias in one special sector (mainly for quality professionals). It is because the selection of method criteria (8 quality management principles). I believed the other sectors such as business, financial and commercial would have different evaluation criteria on the capability of HKSAR CE candidates.

Anyway, it just provides more information for election committee and they will make the final decision by their own judgment.

Dr. Wan feedback:
Even the sample size does not support that the opinion represents top quality professionals. It only serves the political agenda more than an academic piece. Just a thought.

In fact, most people I talk to favour HT than the other candidates as they are too unpredictable as how they may run HK. Hong Kong top quality business people do not believe that we should take any risk at this stage and our business environment cannot afford any radical change.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails