The first test is conducted with the variable central service desk The outcome

The first test is conducted with the variable central

• Notes
• 83
• 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 59 - 61 out of 83 pages.

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