BICAB presentation

PROPOSED PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT BASED ON PERCEIVED QUALITY INFLUENCE AGAINST BRAND SWITCHING INTEREST FOR

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS (TELKOM FLEXI TRENDY CASE, BANDUNG)

Presented by ASTADI PANGARSO

COMUNICATION

TELECOMUNICA

TION

BACKGROUND

http://firmansyah2308.wordpress.com/category/telekomunikasi/,2008

GSM & CDMA

86%

14%

NATIONAL MARKET SHARE

GSM

CDMA

Mr. Jeffri Irmawan , Senior Officer Market Research PT. Telkom, Interview ; 13/10/2009

http://firmansyah2308.wordpress.com/category/telekomunikasi/,2008

OVERVIEW

2002

2004

2005

2006

2007 58 %

3 %

3 %

36 %

CDMA NATIONAL SHARE

SUBSCRIBER

PIONEER

Bapak Jeffri Irmawan , Senior Officer Market Research PT. Telkom, Wawancara; 13/10/2009

OPPORTUNITIES OF GROWTH •  CDG memperkirakan sampai tahun 2010 nanti, akan ada 41% pengguna

telepon tanpa kabel di seluruh dunia yang memakai teknologi CDMA.” (http://bakrietelecomblog.com/2009/04/bersaing-di-pasar-cdma/,2007)

•  “Pasar ini akan terus berkembang. Sekitar 11-13% per tahun,” tutur Heru Sutadi dari Badan Regulasi Telekomunikasi Indonesia.

•  CDMA Development Group (CDG) menyatakan, sampai kuartal pertama 2008, pelanggan CDMA2000 di Indonesia mencapai 16,3 juta orang.( Direktur Operasi CDG, Jamer Person, http://www.antara.co.id/view/?i=1214301339&c=TEK&s=, 2008)

•  Berdasarkan laporan CDMA Development Group (CDG),hingga tahun 2010 ke depan, diperkirakan akan ada 41% pengguna telepon tanpa kabel di seluruh dunia yang memakai teknologi CDMA. (Agus S. Riyanto, Julianto, dan Wisnu Arto Subari, http://www.majalahtrust.com/ekonomi/sektor_riil/1027.php, 2008)

•  “PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk (Telkom) akan memisahkan unit bisnis Telkom Flexi dengan membentuk divisi sendiri. Layanan CDMA itu akan menjadi divisi independen sejak 1 Juli 2009” (http://www.detikfinance.com/read/2009/04/02/124019/1109006/6/telkom-bikin-divisi-khusus-flexi, 2009). Menurut M. Awaluddin, Vice President Public & Marketing Communication PT Telkom, prospek Flexi sebesar 20 juta pelanggan.

OVERVIEW

61% 25%

15%

CONTRIBUTION TO TELKOM’S REVENUE

6%

94%

SUBCRIBERS

CLASSY

TRENDY

http://www.detikfinance.com/read/2009/04/02/124019/1109006/6/telkom-bikin-divisi-khusus-flexi

Bapak Jeffri Irmawan , Senior Officer Market Research PT. Telkom, Wawancara; 13/10/2009

OVERVIEW 9 %

91 %

WEST JAVA FLEXI SALES SUBSCRIBER

Mr. Jeffri Irmawan , Senior Officer Market Research PT. Telkom, Interview; 13/10/2009

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

COMPETITOR THREAT: ESIA

BEING MARKET LEADER IN

BANDUNG (with 69 %market share) http://www.detikinet.com/.../operator-cdma-

saling-klaim-kuasai-tanah-pasundan

•  “Executive Jenderal Manager Divre III Jabar Banten PT Telkom Walden R Bakara menyatakan berdasarkan evaluasi dari hasil kerja tahun 2008, sebanyak 40 persen pengguna Telkom Flexi beralih ke operator lain” (Agus Rakasiwi http://www.detikinet.com/read/2009/01/09/161555/1065852/328/pelanggan-pindah-telkom-tambah-555-bts-flexi, 2009)

• “Dari beberapa survei yang kami lakukan, churn rate di Bandung sepanjang 2007 berkisar 64%.”(abdullah isa, http://www.sharingvision.biz/2008/01/11/keluhan-pelanggan-operator-seluler-naik/ ,2009).

WINNER OF MANY NATIONAL BRAND AWARDS

http://bakrietelecomblog.com/?cat=6; http://www.swa.co.id/cetak.php?cid=1&id=3007&

HOW BE MARKET LEADER?

• SATISFYING THE EXISTING FLEXY’S SUBCRIBERS

& • GRAB ESIA’S SUBCRIBERS

OBJECTIVE FLEXY KNOW THE POSITION OF PERCEIVED QUALITY AND BRAND SWITCHING INTERESTVARIABLES (IN WHAT AREA?PRIORITY FOR IMPROVEMENT/LEFT BEHIND?COMPETITION?SUPERIOR?) IN ORDER TO BE CDMA BANDUNG MARKET LEADER

PERCEIVED QUALITY • “CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ABOUT WHOLE PRODUCTS/SERVICES QUALITY ASPECTS THAT MATCH WITH WHAT CONSUMERS WANTS” (Durianto,2004:96)

• PERCEIVED MEASUREMENT MEANS MEASURE CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ABOUT ALL PRODUCT QUALITIES (Durianto,2004: 105)

• 4 QUADRANTS • 6 QUADRANTS

IPA (Importance Performance Analysis)

Kuadran 1underact

Kuadran 4overact

Kuadran 3Low

priority

Kuadran 2maintain

Importance

Performance

Tinggi

Rendah

TinggiRendah

PERFORMANCE

LEFT BEHIND (WORSE

THAN COMPETITOR

)

COMPETE (FAIR WITH

COMPETITOR)

SUPERIOR (BETTER

THAN COMPETITOR

)

IMPO

RTA

NC

E

HIGH PRIORITY

IMPROVEMENT

COMPETITION AREA

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

LOW IGNORE

Martilla dan James (1977) www.burke.com/library/whitepapers/b.whitepapervol5iss1.pdf

IPA 6 QUADRANTS MODIFICATION

• (Y)IMPORTANCEàCORRELATION WITH BRAND SWITCH INTEREST

• (X) PERFORMANCE àPERCEIVED QUALITIES COMPARISON FLEXI OVER ESIA

COLLECTING & DATA PROCESSING POPULATION & SAMPLE

VALIDITY & RELIABILITY INSTRUMENTS

1 WAY ANOVA

IPA PROCESS : • Y AXIS (BRAND SWITCHING INTEREST) :

MULTI LINEAR REGRESSION à F test, t test

• X AXIS (FLEXI VS ESIA PERFORMANCE): Z-TEST

WHY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS? • BIG MARKET • AGE BETWEEN 17- 24 Y.O • DINAMIC •  TECHNOLOGY AWARE •  TREND FOLLOWER • PRICE RELATIVE

SENSITIVE http://firmansyah2308.wordpress.com/category/telekomunikasi/ & interview with mr. Jeffry Irmawan Senior Officer Market Research PT. Telkom Spire Research Consulting, http://firmansyah2308.wordpress.com/category/telekomunikasi/ ,2008

•  RESPONDENCES ARE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WHO ARE NOW USING ESIA BUT IN THE PAST USED FLEXI TRENDY

•  PURPOSIVE AKSIDENTAL SAMPLING (SNOWBALL) AMOUNT OF SAMPLE (BASE ON TABLE) à 272

•  RESPONDENCE OF EACH UNIVERSITY CONSIST 30 PEOPLE, TOTAL QUESTIONAIRE 300

•  FROM 10 UNIVERSITIES IN BANDUNG

•  COLLECTED ON NOVEMBER 2009

SAMPLE TABLE

!

PERCEIVED QUALITY VARIABLES • unstructured in depth interview (Malhorta, 2007:152) TO 30 BANDUNG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH 17-24 YO WHO ARE PREPAID CDMA SUBCRIBERS WITH THIS QUESTION :“WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANTS THINGS THAT YOU THINK AND FEEL IMPORTANT TO CDMA SERVICE PROVIDER?”

No Variabel1 Penanganan saran dan keluhan2 Kejernihan suara panggilan3 Kestabilan sinyal di berbagai wilayah4 Frekuensi gangguan sinyal 5 Kecepatan panggilan ke berbagai operator6 Masa aktif untuk nilai isi ulang yang setara7 Stabilitas koneksi internet.8 Keberhasilan pengiriman sms ke berbagai operator9 Kecepatan pengiriman sms ke berbagai operator

10 Daya tahan simcard11 Kecepatan browsing di internet12 Variasi Download Content (Games, Aplikasi)13 Tarif akses internet14 Variasi quiz 15 Ketersediaan program chatting16 Keberhasilan pengiriman MMS17 Ketepatan janji promosi18 Bonus pemakaian (telepon, sms)19 Bonus aktivasi.20 Layanan RBT (Ring Back Tone )21 Transfer pulsa22 Harga kartu perdana23 Harga voucher isi ulang24 Variasi Nominal Pulsa25 Daya tarik Iklan26 Tarif telepon ke berbagai operator27 Tarif sms ke berbagai operator28 Bonus isi ulang29 Kemudahan mencari kartu perdana30 Kemudahan mendapat nomor cantik

BRAND SWITCHING INTEREST No. Pernyataan

1 Saya akan mengeluarkan banyak waktu apabila berpindah ke Operator Flexi2 Saya akan mengeluarkan banyak uang apabila berpindah ke Operator Flexi3 Saya akan mengeluarkan usaha yang besar untuk menghubungi keluarga, teman, dan rekan kerja jika saya pindah ke Flexi 4 Saya akan kehilangan semua layanan istimewa yang pernah dirasakan sebelumnya bila saya berpindah ke Operator Flexi 5 Saya akan membutuhkan waktu untuk belajar menggunakan fitur yang ditawarkan bila saya berpindah ke Operator Flexi6 Saya akan membutuhkan usaha untuk beradaptasi dengan operator baru bila saya berpindah ke Operator Flexi7 Merupakan ide baik apabila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi8 Merupakan hal yang bermanfaat untuk dilakukan bila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi9 Merupakan hal yang menguntungkan bila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi

10 Merupakan hal yang menyenangkan bila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi11 Merupakan keputusan yang benar untuk dilakukan bila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi12 Merupakan keputusan yang seharusnya dilakukan bila saya mengganti operator seluler menjadi Flexi13 Saya ingin melakukan perpindahan ke Operator Flexi dalam beberapa bulan ke depan14 Saya tidak sempat untuk melakukan perpindahan ke Operator Flexi dalam beberapa bulan ke depan15 Situasi saat ini memungkinkan saya untuk melakukan perpindahan ke operator Flexi dalam beberapa bulan ke depan

Minat Berpindah Merek

http://forum.berani.co.id/default.aspx?g=posts&m=14485, 2008

VALIDITY : CALCULATED Pearson Product Moment CORRELATION COEFFICIENT > r table) df = N-2 = 30 – 2=28 with significance level 0.05 à r table = 0.374.

TOTALPQ GENAPPQ GANJILPQ Kesimpulan Pearson Correlation 0.458 0.402 0.483 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.011 0.028 0.007 N 30

0 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.415 0.49 0.322 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.023 0.006 0.083 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.415 0.469 0.341 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.023 0.009 0.065 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.368 0.374 0.342 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045 0.042 0.065 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.578 0.553 0.567 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.002 0.001 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.451 0.496 0.384 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.012 0.005 0.036 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.42 0.343 0.467 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.021 0.063 0.009 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.433 0.511 0.337 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.004 0.069 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.478 0.467 0.461 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.007 0.009 0.01 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.576 0.636 0.488 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0 0.006 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.529 0.402 0.615 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.028 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.551 0.475 0.589 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.008 0.001 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.325 0.188 0.432 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.08 0.32 0.017 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.316 0.328 0.287 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.089 0.077 0.124 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.453 0.37 0.503 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.012 0.044 0.005 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.455 0.453 0.43 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.012 0.012 0.018 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.472 0.35 0.557 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008 0.058 0.001 N 30 30 30

Perceived Quality Correlations Valid PQ1

PQ2 Valid PQ3 Valid PQ4 Valid PQ5 Valid PQ6 Valid PQ7 Valid PQ8 Valid PQ9 Valid

PQ10 Valid PQ11 Valid PQ12 Valid PQ13 Valid PQ14 Valid PQ15 Valid PQ16 Valid PQ17 Valid

R-PRODUCT MOMENT TABLE

TOTALPQ GENAPPQ GANJILPQ KesimpulanPearson Correlation 0.505 0.493 0.488Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.006 0.006N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.478 0.462 0.465Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008 0.01 0.01N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.559 0.541 0.543Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.002 0.002N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.395 0.371 0.394Sig. (2-tailed) 0.031 0.043 0.031N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.317 0.363 0.255Sig. (2-tailed) 0.088 0.048 0.173N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.535 0.549 0.491Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.002 0.006N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.466 0.483 0.423Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.007 0.02N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.43 0.45 0.387Sig. (2-tailed) 0.018 0.013 0.035N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.376 0.31 0.414Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.095 0.023N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.404 0.297 0.479Sig. (2-tailed) 0.027 0.111 0.007N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.376 0.453 0.283Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.012 0.129N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.645 0.648 0.605Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.508 0.503 0.482Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 0.005 0.007N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 1 0.967 0.972Sig. (2-tailed) . 0 0N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.967 1 0.881Sig. (2-tailed) 0 . 0N 30 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.972 0.881 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 .N 30 30 30

***

Perceived Quality Correlations

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PQ18 Valid

PQ19 Valid

PQ20 Valid

PQ21 Valid

PQ22 Valid

PQ23 Valid

PQ24 Valid

PQ25 Valid

PQ26 Valid

PQ27 Valid

PQ28 Valid

GENAPPQ

PQ29 Valid

PQ30 Valid

GANJILPQ

TOTALPQ

TOTALSC GENAPSC GANJILSC Kesimpulan Pearson Correlation 0.56 0.496 0.536 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.005 0.002 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.635 0.544 0.627 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.002 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.492 0.267 0.651 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.006 0.154 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.383 0.328 0.38 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.036 0.077 0.038 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.356 0.125 0.545 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.053 0.51 0.002 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.371 0.374 0.308 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.043 0.042 0.098 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.462 0.496 0.35 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.005 0.058 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.688 0.717 0.544 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.002 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.693 0.689 0.585 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.001 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.602 0.787 0.306 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.101 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.529 0.293 0.695 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.117 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.604 0.761 0.337 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.069 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 1 0.926 0.915 Sig. (2-tailed) . 0 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.926 1 0.695 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 . 0 N 30 30 30 Pearson Correlation 0.915 0.695 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 . N 30 30 30

* **

Minat berpindah merek Correlations

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

SC1

SC2

SC3

SC4

Valid

Valid

Valid

SC10

SC11

SC12

SC5

SC9

Valid

Valid

Valid

Valid

Valid

Valid

SC6

SC7

SC8

Valid

Valid

Valid

TOTALSC

GENAPSC

GANJILSC

RELIABILITY •  SPEARMAN BROWN METHOD

ri : internal realibility for all instrumens rb : product moment correlation between group 1 & 2 •  0.70 – 0.89 : high reliability •  0.9 – 1.00 : very high reliability

(Guilford (Sugiyono, 2009:153))

rbsi =2rb1+ rb

=2!0.8811+ 0.881

= 0.937

b

bi r

rr

+=12

rpq =2rb1+ rb

=2!0.6951+ 0.695

= 0.82

2 MAIN HYPHOTHESES RELATED TO IPA 1.  ASSOCIATIVE

HYPOTHESES (Y) BETWEEN PERCEIVED QUALITY AND BRAND SWITCHING INTEREST (F test & t test)

2.  PERFORMANCE GAP HYPOTHESES (Y) FLEXY OVER ESIA (Z test)

Y

2

X

1

100 à 1.97 290 à x3 500 à 1.9 (x-1.97)/(1.9-1.97)=(290-100)/(500-100)=1.94

SO ALL DATA FROM 10 UNIVERSITIES CAN BE USED TO CALCULATED WITH MULTI LINEAR REGRESSION METHOD

•  Ho: µ1 = µ2 = … = µ10 (there is no mean value difference in respondence group)

•  H1: at least there are difference between respondence group Real level 0.05. Critical area: F calculation < F table (1.94) for perceived quality variables (accept Ho) Critical area: F calculation < F table (1.94) for brand switching interest variables (accept Ho)

ANOVA TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO MEAN VALUE FROM EACH UNIVERSITY WITH EACH RESEARCH VARIABLES (HOMOGENITY)

Reject Ho

Accept Ho

1.94

ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Hasil

Between Groups 11.97428978 9 1.330476643Within Groups 263.4982377 263 1.00189444Total 275.4725275 272Between Groups 5.734691745 9 0.637187972Within Groups 337.7804598 287 1.1769354Total 343.5151515 296Between Groups 21.33976102 9 2.371084558Within Groups 389.0985951 282 1.379782252Total 410.4383562 291Between Groups 6.54391363 9 0.727101514Within Groups 252.2420513 275 0.917243823Total 258.7859649 284Between Groups 1.0078114 9 0.111979044Within Groups 308.1758621 284 1.085126275Total 309.1836735 293Between Groups 4.661658775 9 0.517962086Within Groups 222.4437958 265 0.83941055Total 227.1054545 274Between Groups 7.684371184 9 0.85381902Within Groups 156.5934066 152 1.03021978Total 164.2777778 161Between Groups 6.862296151 9 0.76247735Within Groups 324.5452381 282 1.150869639Total 331.4075342 291Between Groups 4.292582418 9 0.476953602Within Groups 327.5824176 278 1.17835402Total 331.875 287Between Groups 2.835280149 9 0.315031128Within Groups 110.7809989 248 0.446697576Total 113.6162791 257Between Groups 15.77753358 9 1.753059286Within Groups 137.9724664 134 1.029645272Total 153.75 143Between Groups 5.105777311 9 0.56730859Within Groups 143.179937 158 0.906202133Total 148.2857143 167Between Groups 13.80267338 9 1.533630375Within Groups 150.2789593 137 1.09692671Total 164.0816327 146Between Groups 11.58515402 9 1.287239336Within Groups 180.7306355 218 0.829039612Total 192.3157895 227Between Groups 7.853422395 9 0.872602488Within Groups 112.2642247 143 0.785064508Total 120.1176471 152

0.541396 0.843763 Tidak Ada PerbedaanPQ2

1.327961 0.222336 Tidak Ada PerbedaanPQ1

ANOVA

1.718448 0.084493 Tidak Ada Perbedaan












Tidak Ada Perbedaan

PQ3

PQ4

PQ5

PQ6

PQ7

PQ8

PQ9

PQ10

PQ11

PQ12

PQ13

PQ14

PQ15 1.111504 0.358396

Between Groups 5.84444076 9 0.649382307Within Groups 152.9897301 189 0.809469471Total 158.8341709 198Between Groups 3.928682818 9 0.436520313Within Groups 378.0502646 275 1.374728235Total 381.9789474 284Between Groups 4.022753929 9 0.446972659Within Groups 378.6609195 284 1.333313097Total 382.6836735 293Between Groups 5.016266785 9 0.557362976Within Groups 290.7966829 268 1.085062249Total 295.8129496 277Between Groups 4.474574965 9 0.497174996Within Groups 243.7671833 263 0.926871419Total 248.2417582 272Between Groups 5.804449637 9 0.644938849Within Groups 189.1625833 263 0.719249366Total 194.967033 272Between Groups 7.051716332 9 0.783524037Within Groups 130.7627167 281 0.465347746Total 137.814433 290Between Groups 4.467996041 9 0.496444005Within Groups 210.4463875 282 0.746263786Total 214.9143836 291Between Groups 6.030425067 9 0.67004723Within Groups 185.2891626 281 0.659392038Total 191.3195876 290Between Groups 6.283333333 9 0.698148148Within Groups 319.9666667 290 1.103333333Total 326.25 299Between Groups 8.907432875 9 0.989714764Within Groups 393.8502463 283 1.391696983Total 402.7576792 292Between Groups 2.83 9 0.314444444Within Groups 350.3 290 1.207931034Total 353.13 299Between Groups 16.85438355 9 1.872709283Within Groups 312.0966654 276 1.13078502Total 328.951049 285Between Groups 4.403333333 9 0.489259259Within Groups 196.5666667 290 0.677816092Total 200.97 299Between Groups 1.195266515 9 0.132807391Within Groups 205.6797335 278 0.739855156Total 206.875 287


ANOVA

Tidak Ada Perbedaan














PQ16

PQ17 0.317532 0.968897

PQ18

PQ19

PQ20

PQ21

PQ22

PQ23

PQ24

PQ25

PQ26

PQ27

PQ28

PQ29

PQ30

Between Groups 4.536666667 9 0.504074074Within Groups 299.6333333 290 1.033218391Total 304.17 299Between Groups 6.163333333 9 0.684814815Within Groups 238.9666667 290 0.824022989Total 245.13 299Between Groups 10.83 9 1.203333333Within Groups 343.5 290 1.184482759Total 354.33 299Between Groups 9.266666667 9 1.02962963Within Groups 263.7333333 290 0.909425287Total 273 299Between Groups 2.47 9 0.274444444Within Groups 289.7 290 0.998965517Total 292.17 299Between Groups 8.013333333 9 0.89037037Within Groups 250.4666667 290 0.863678161Total 258.48 299Between Groups 4.963333333 9 0.551481481Within Groups 282.1666667 290 0.972988506Total 287.13 299Between Groups 5.403333333 9 0.60037037Within Groups 244.7666667 290 0.844022989Total 250.17 299Between Groups 2.333333333 9 0.259259259Within Groups 228.3333333 290 0.787356322Total 230.6666667 299Between Groups 8.466666667 9 0.940740741Within Groups 309.5333333 290 1.067356322Total 318 299Between Groups 12.73666667 9 1.415185185Within Groups 311.8333333 290 1.075287356Total 324.57 299Between Groups 11.18666667 9 1.242962963Within Groups 279.9333333 290 0.965287356Total 291.12 299


ANOVA












SC1

SC2

SC3

SC4

SC5

SC6

SC7

SC12

SC8

SC9

SC10

SC11

• Ho: regression line isn’t linear • H1: regression line linear Real level 0.05

(r1 numerator = 3 & r2 = 300 – 3 - 1 = 296) 100 à 2.7 296 à x 500 à 2.62 (x-2.7)/(2.62-2.7)=(296-100)/(500-100)=2.66 Critical area: f calculation > f table (2.66) à (reject Ho : regression line linear)

F test (To check : is the line linear?)

Reject Ho Accept Ho

2.66

!

!

!

T test (To check : is there any connection between dependent & independent variable?)

•  Ho: β = 0 (there is no connection between perceived quality and brand switch

interests) •  Ha: β < 0 (there is connection between perceived quality and brand switch

interests) Real level 0.05

Critical area: t calculation < t table (-1.645) or t calculation > t table (1.645) à reject Ho

Accept Ho -1.96 1.96

Reject Ho Reject

Ho

!

MULTI REGRESSION LINEAR

•  Y= a + bxn + bxn +bxn •  Y = a – 0.234 – 0.219 – 0.21 •  Y : BRAND SWITCHING INTEREST/SC •  X : PERCEIVED QUALITY •  a : constanta •  bx3 : perceived quality variable 3 (signal stability) •  bx5 : perceived quality variable 5 (calling quickness) •  bx6 : perceived quality variable 6 (reload activation time) •  R2 = 0.12 à The third variable is the perceived quality can explain 12.2% variation in

brand switching interest

x : independent variable

y: dependent variable

PERFORMANCE GAP HYPOTHESES •  Ho: µ = 3 (There are no quality perceptions differences between Esia & Flexi) •  H1: µ ≠ 3 (There are quality perceptions differences between Esia & Flexi) Real level 0.05 Critical area: Z < -1.96 dan Z > 1.96 à reject Ho

Z calculate < -1.96 : Flexi superior than Esia Z calculate > 1.96 : Flexi left behind Esia -1.96 < Z calculate < 1.96 : Flexi compete with Esia

Accept Ho (Compete)

Reject Ho (Superior)

Reject Ho (Left behind)

-1.96 (1) 1.96

(5) (3)

!

!

Z -TEST

•  Z calculate < -1.96 : Flexi superior than Esia •  Z calculate > 1.96 : Flexi left behind Esia •  -1.96 < Z calculate < 1.96 : Flexi compete with Esia

Lower UpperPQ1 3.0671439 272 0.002379 0.186813187 0.066902422 0.306723952 TertinggalPQ2 1.1311338 296 0.258914 0.070707071 -0.052313101 0.193727243 BersaingPQ3 -1.730449 291 3.5E-06 -0.32876712 -0.465553909 -0.191980337 BersaingPQ4 -9.556241 284 6.07E-19 -0.54035088 -0.651649954 -0.429051801 UnggulPQ5 -1.247104 293 0.000215 -0.2244898 -0.342398677 -0.106580915 BersaingPQ6 4.2391143 274 3.07E-05 0.232727273 0.124647906 0.340806639 TertinggalPQ7 -2.566729 161 0.011177 -0.2037037 -0.360430719 -0.046976689 UnggulPQ8 -4.551473 291 7.84E-06 -0.28424658 -0.407160579 -0.161332572 UnggulPQ9 -2.959042 287 0.003343 -0.1875 -0.312219239 -0.062780761 UnggulPQ10 5.8989807 257 1.15E-08 0.244186047 0.162670215 0.325701878 TertinggalPQ11 -4.339833 143 2.68E-05 -0.375 -0.545803728 -0.204196272 UnggulPQ12 -2.947518 167 0.003662 -0.21428571 -0.357815996 -0.070755433 UnggulPQ13 -1.867235 146 0.063874 -0.16326531 -0.336070898 0.009540286 BersaingPQ14 2.5902432 227 0.010212 0.157894737 0.037779849 0.278009624 TertinggalPQ15 -2.728311 152 0.007116 -0.19607843 -0.338067714 -0.054089149 UnggulPQ16 -6.806636 198 1.16E-10 -0.4321608 -0.557366359 -0.306955249 UnggulPQ17 1.2258244 284 0.22128 0.084210526 -0.051009468 0.219430521 BersaingPQ18 4.133569 293 4.67E-05 0.275510204 0.144333049 0.406687359 TertinggalPQ19 4.7590772 277 3.14E-06 0.294964029 0.172953846 0.416974212 TertinggalPQ20 8.5526259 272 8.88E-16 0.494505495 0.380675571 0.608335418 TertinggalPQ21 13.725361 272 6.21E-33 0.703296703 0.602417971 0.804175436 TertinggalPQ22 13.775906 290 1.47E-33 0.556701031 0.47716458 0.636237482 TertinggalPQ23 9.601552 291 3.84E-19 0.482876712 0.383895466 0.581857958 TertinggalPQ24 13.857153 290 7.43E-34 0.659793814 0.566081088 0.753506541 TertinggalPQ25 9.1197651 299 1.14E-17 0.55 0.431316974 0.668683026 TertinggalPQ26 4.2779347 292 2.56E-05 0.293515358 0.15847967 0.428551047 TertinggalPQ27 12.272121 299 2.59E-28 0.77 0.646524538 0.893475462 TertinggalPQ28 2.0914976 285 0.037369 0.132867133 0.007824972 0.257909294 TertinggalPQ29 10.774591 299 4.34E-23 0.51 0.416850835 0.603149165 TertinggalPQ30 7.9121689 287 5.53E-14 0.395833333 0.297364184 0.494302483 Tertinggal

Kesimpulan

One-Sample Test

95% Confidence IntervalTest Value = 3

Var t dfSig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

ANALYSIS •  improved perceived quality Esia will discourage

undergraduate students to move to Flexi •  PQ3:Undergraduate student subcribers will simply switch

to Flexi operator if and only if the undergraduate student's perception of the stability of the carrier signal Flexi in many areas better than the stability of the carrier signal Esia

•  PQ5:Undergraduate student subcribers will simply switch to Flexi operator if and only if the undergraduate student's perception of the speed of dialing to various operator from Flexi in many areas better than Esia’s dialing speed to various operator

•  PQ6:undergraduatestudent users will simply switch to Flexi operator if and only if the undergraduate student's perception of Flexi’s active period better than Esia active period.

6 Masa aktif untuk nilai isi ulang yang setara 3 Kestabilan sinyal di berbagai wilayah

5 Kecepatan panggilan ke berbagai operator

1 Penanganan saran dan keluhan 2 Kejernihan suara panggilan 4 Frekuensi gangguan sinyal

10 Daya tahan simcard 13 Tarif akses internet 7 Stabilitas koneksi internet

14 Variasi quiz 17 Ketepatan janji promosi 8 Keberhasilan pengiriman sms ke berbagai operator

18 Bonus pemakaian (telepon, sms) 9 Kecepatan pengiriman sms ke berbagai operator

19 Bonus aktivasi. 11 Kecepatan browsing di internet

20 Layanan RBT (Ring Back Tone ) 12 Variasi Download Content (Games, Aplikasi)

21 Transfer pulsa 15 Ketersediaan program chatting

22 Harga kartu perdana 16 Keberhasilan pengiriman MMS

23 Harga voucher isi ulang

24 Variasi Nominal Pulsa

25 Daya tarik Iklan

26 Tarif telepon ke berbagai operator

27 Tarif sms ke berbagai operator

28 Bonus isi ulang

29 Kemudahan mencari kartu perdana

30 Kemudahan mendapat nomor cantik

Rendah

KO

REL

ASI

TER

HA

DA

P M

INA

T BE

RPI

ND

AH

MER

EKBersaing UnggulTertinggal

PERBANDINGAN PERSEPSI MAHASISWA ATAS KUALITAS FLEXI TERHADAP ESIA

Tinggi

Z > 1.96 -1.96 ≤ Z ≤ 1.96 Z<-1.96

CONCLUSION B

RA

ND

SW

ITC

HIN

G IN

TER

EST

(Y)

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS PERCEPTION COMPARISON FLEXI OVER ESIA QUALITIES (X)

LEFT BEHIND COMPETE SUPERIO

R

HIGH

Active period for

an equivalent value refills

(6)

- The stability of the signal in different regions (3)

- Speed dialing to various operators (5)

LOW

THANK YOU & BLESS YOU

Documents

BICAB presentation