8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

1/6

ASSIGNMENT

SUBMITTED BY: SHAHID JAVAID

STUDENT I .D : 17181

COURSE : QTA

CLASS DAY: SUNDAY

TIM ING : 03:00 PM TO 6:00 PM

DATE : 19/12/2013

SUBMITTED TO Sir ghulam abbas

IQRA UNIVERSITY

8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

2/6

THE INTERNAL PREDICTORS OF

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE INSMALL FIRMS

Purpose:

In order to provide a deeper understanding of small businessperformance the study aims to analyze data from a national

survey into small firms in the events sector.

Hypothesis:

H.1 There is an association between firm size and its

performance

H.2 There is an association between profitability and hospitality

services.

Statistical work:

Conclusion

The variables discovered to have the most excellent affiliationwith change in execution of the contemplated firms were thetime of the business, the measure of special action embraced,

and the utilization of stores furnished by family or companions.

A fresher business that uses a mixed bag of limited timeroutines and does not depend on family and companions formonetary backing is more inclined to attain picks up inexecution. Positive increases are likewise liable to be made bythose that utilize concedes as a wellspring of money, utilizevarious quality devices and have the ability to enroll withoutchallenge.

8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

3/6

Results and Tables

Double logistic relapse utilizing logit as the connection capacitywas performed utilizing all the remaining ward variables. Notsurprisingly the model had a great fit (72.3 for every pennyconcordant sets) and exceptional prescient force, in any case,the commitment of every variable to the generally spasm of themodel required to be surveyed with the goal that a more miserlymodel could be recognized.

Unquestionably the qualities of the standardised coefficients ofevery indicator are given in Table I in slipping request of size.Standardised coefficient scores of 2 or more are measurablyhuge at the 95 for every penny level, which incorporates thefirst four indicators recorded.

Predictor Standardised coefficient (z)

Business age 3.53Promotional activity 3.09Funds from family 2.58Quality tools used 2.03Funds from grants 1.77Recruitment difficulties 1.48

No. of events held 1.42Training 1.38

No. of obstacles to performance 1.18Event attendance 1.13Pricing method 0.91Satisfied with skills levels 0.79Funds from savings 0.76Importance of quality 0.75Targeting strategy 0.71Total number of employees 0.62Level of marketing planning 0.52Type of business ownership 0.47Marketing research activity 0.33

Business type0.27

Amount of outsourcing 0.25Main event type 0.19Formality of quality methods 0.16Funds from retained profits 0.11Funds from loans 0.10

Ordinal logistic regression:

To reduce the data loss in the dependent variable the modelling process was retried

8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

4/6

with the performance measure recoded into four categories. This was achieved by

recoding the data using quartiles as the category boundaries (Q1 16, Q2 19,

8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

5/6

Somers D(predictive Pearsons ppower of value (fit to of

Variables in model % pairs model) model to data)

1 All 72.3 0.44 0.210

2 All over sig. 95 per cent

Business age, quality tools, funding from friends andfamily, promotional activity 66 0.32 0.525

3 All over sig. 90 per centAs above plus grants, recruitment difficulties 68.2 0.36 0.538

4 All over 80 per cent sig.As above plus training, number of events 71.1 0.42 0.402

5 All over 70 per cent sig.As above plus number of obstacles, event attendance 71.8 0.44 0.405

Results of ordinal logistic regressionFrom Table V it can be seen that model 1 using all variables only correctly places 67.4 per

cent of pairs so a high measure of association is unlikely for a more parsimonious model.The ordinal logistic model which correctly places the most observations (63.7 per cent)

appears to be the one that uses the same variables as the best fitting binaryOriginal score Classification code Meaning

8 to 15 1 Very poor relative performanceTable III.16 to 18 2 Poor relative performance Performance measure19 to 21 3 Good relative performance classification for ordinal21 to 24 4 Very good relative performancelogistic regression

Predictor Standardised coefficient (z)

Business age 3.89Promotional activity 3.18Funding from family 2.11Pricing methods 1.73

Funding from grants 1.72No. of obstacles to performance 1.40Size of event attendance 1.38

No. of events held 1.32Level of training 1.28Satisfied with skills levels 1.27Business type 1.23Quality tools used 1.09Level of marketing planning 0.95Funding from savings 0.94Recruitment difficulties 0.84Amount of outsourcing 0.78Funding from profits 0.48Total number of employees 0.40Type of ownership 0.25Main type of event 0.15

Formality of quality systems 0.14Funding from loans 0.13Targeting strategy 0.02Marketing research activity 0.02Importance of quality 0.02Predictor Standardised coefficient (z)

Business age 3.89Promotional activity 3.18Funding from family 2.11Pricing methods 1.73Funding from grants 1.72

8/13/2019 Logistic Analysis

6/6

No. of obstacles to performance 1.40Size of event attendance 1.38

No. of events held 1.32Level of training 1.28Satisfied with skills levels 1.27Business type 1.23Quality tools used 1.09Level of marketing planning 0.95

Funding from savings 0.94Recruitment difficulties 0.84Amount of outsourcing 0.78Funding from profits 0.48Total number of employees 0.40Type of ownership 0.25Main type of event 0.15Formality of quality systems 0.14Funding from loans 0.13Targeting strategy 0.02Marketing research activity 0.02Importance of quality 0.02