The first test is conducted with the variable ‘central service desk. The outcome in Table 24 shows
that the introduction of facility management is rated more as a success when there is a central
service desk for the coordination of all facilities. The connection between the two variables is
tested with a chi-square in the table test statistics. The chi-square is 20.932 and highly significant
(<0.01).
This means you could state that there is a positive difference in the way the introduction of facility
management is rated with respect to the attendance of a central point for the apply of facility
services.
Ranks
FM.perceived. success
N
Mean Rank
Central service desk
Success
47
40.38
Rather .success
27
37.78
Rather. Failure
2
4.00
Total
76
Test Statistics (a,b)
Central
service
desk
Chi-Square
20.932
df
2
Asymp. Sig.
.000
a
Kruskal Wallis Test
b
Grouping Variable: FM.perceived.success
Table 24: Kruskall Wallis test ‘Central service desk’
The second test is done with the variable ‘Place FM in organization’. The outcome of the test is
showed in Table 25. With respect to the outcome of the mean ranks, there is not a linear relation
shown between the hierarchal level and the ranking of the facility management organization. The
outcome shows that the chi-square is 5.714 with a p-value of 0.057. This means that the outcome
is almost significant. The results of this test do not show a clear outcome to conclude anything on.
60
Ranks
FM.perceived success
N
Mean Rank
Success
43
31.94
Rather
success
23
40.67
Rather failure
2
18.50
Place FM in
organization
Total
68
Test Statistics (a,b)
Hierarchal level
Chi-Square
5.714
df
2
Asymp. Sig.
.057
a
Kruskal Wallis Test
b
Grouping Variable: FM.perceived.success
Table 25: Kruskal Wallis Test ‘Hierarchal level’
7.3.3
ICT
In the previous paragraph, a comparison was made between the added value of organization with
FMIS and organizations without FMIS. The results showed clearly that organizations with a FMIS
scored higher on added value, than organization without a FMIS. To get a better view, the
outcomes are also tested on the connection between the presence of a FMIS and the degree of
success of a facility management organization. This is also done with help of a Kruskal-Walis
test. The outcome is showed in Table 26. The test exists again of two tables; one of Ranks and
one of ‘Test Statistics’.
When all independent mean ranks are observed, you see that the mean
rank of ‘success’ is higher than ‘rather success’ and much higher than the option ‘rather failure’.
The option ‘failure’ is kept out of the test, because no organizations with a FMIS experience the
introduction of facility management as a total failure.
In the second table the test statistics are shown. The chi-square is 8.245 with a p-value of 0.016.
This means that the differences in ranks are highly significant. The higher the chi-square, the
stronger the causal relation between the two variables. In this case the chi-square is 8.245, what
is not really high but also not extremely low. Therefore, you could state that there is a difference
