Teamwork and decision making environment at Koo-Yoo-Hah motor company: A Case study

Show full item record

Title: Teamwork and decision making environment at Koo-Yoo-Hah motor company: A Case study
Author: Angsanant, Siriruk
Abstract: This is a case study on the detection of differences that have occurred in the structure and process that support effective teamwork and decision making among branches: Khonkaen Yone, Sarakram, Leiy, and Head office in Kow-Yoo-Hah Motor company (Thailand.) A comparative approach was considered to use in this research. The data collected from the four different branches were compared to each other in order to find out how they are different. The instrument used in this case study was the organization Team survey instrument developed by Boone and kilmann. The purpose of this case study was to look at differences that occurred among the four branches in the company in 1999. The survey was conducted in January 1 999 at the four branches of Kow-Yoo-Hah Motor Company (Thailand.) The questionnaires were administered to employees currently working at the company. Participation was done on a volunteer basic, and individual confidentiality was maintained. There were 35 participants in Khonkaen branch, 52 participants in Sarakram branch, 36 participants in Leiy branch, and 52 participants in Head office. The questionnaire is composed of four parts. Part I, the respondents were briefly asked to describe their jobs. In Part II, there are forty-six random place questions. The set of forty-six questions was divided in ten main factors: factor1 -Multiple Input and Alternatives, factor 2- Problem Identification, factor 3-Rewards for good decision, factor 4-Use of group efforts, factor 5 -Politics, factor 6 Resource Adequacy, factor 7-leadership of Members, factor8-Flexibility in Work performance, factor 9-Restrain for Decision Making, and factor 10-Ideas in workplace. The data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS.) Significant differences of factors between the four branches were determined using group T-value. T-value and P-Values between 0.1 and 0.01 were used to detect any significant differences. Consequently, fifteen comparisons were found to have statistically significant differences. Between Khonkaen Yone and Sarakram branches, there were significant differences in factor 2-Problem Identification (mean = 3.8:3.55, T-value = 203, df = 73.76, p-Value = 0.045), factor 3-Reward for good decision mean = 3.76: 3.25,T-value = 2.89, df = 76.99, p-value = 0.005), factor 6-Resource adequacy (mean = 3.56: 3.27, Tvalue = 2.81, df = 55.98, p-value = 0.007), and factor 8-Flexibility in workplace (mean = 3.31: 3.11, T-value = 1.83, df = 74.84, p-value = 0.071) Between Khonkaen Yone and Leiy branches, the significant differences were in factor 5 -Use of the group efforts (mean = 2.8: 3.28, T-value = -2.95, df = 68.07, p-value = 0.004) , and factor 9-Restrain for decision making ( mean = 2.5 : 2.85, T-value = -2.14, df = 68.09, p-value = 0.809) Between Khonkaen Yone and Head office, Factor 2-problem identification ( mean = 3.8 : 3.48. T-value = 2.45, df = 79.81, p-value = 0.017), factor 3-Reward for good decision (mean = 3.76 : 3.41, T-value = 2.21, df = 79.81, p-value = 0.031), factor 6-Resource adequacy (mean = 3.56 : 3.31, T-value = 2.51, df = 83.46, p-value = 0.014), and factor 7- Leadership of members ( mean = 3.31 : 3.24, T-value = 0.68, df = 64.83, p-value = 0.499) were found to have significant differences. Between Sarakram and Leiy branches, factor 3-Rewards for good decision (mean = 3.25: 3.55, T-value = -1.88, df = 85.04, p-value = 0.064), factor 4-Use of group efforts (mean = 2.92: 3.28, T-value = -2.78, df = 62.72, pvalue = 0.007), and factor 9-Restrain for decision making (mean = 2.47: 2.85, T-value = - 2.45 df = 74.03, p-value = 0.017) were found to have significant differences. Between Sarakram and Head office, only factor 7 Leadership (mean = 4.17: 3.9, T-value = 1.91, df = 99.79, p-value = 0.059) was found to have significant difference. Between Leiy branch and Head office, factor 4-Use of group efforts (mean = 3.28 : 2.9, T-value = 2.55, df = 81.78, p-value = 0.014) was the only one to have significant differences. Part III of the questionnaire asked for ranking the top five problem areas in each branch of the company. In Head office, Company policy and strategies was considered to be the first big problem. The second big problem was Finance and budgeting. The third problem was Motivation to do job better. The fourth problem was Adequate training to do job and the last problem was Personal. The recommendation for this study is that the company should find out and understand employee expectations in order to have employees satisfy its customers, and solve their current top problems.
Record URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1850/13910
Date: 1999

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
SAngsanantThesis07-1999.pdf 1.417Mb PDF View/Open

The following license files are associated with this item:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

Search RIT DML


Advanced Search

Browse