Dealer Satisfaction Index (TRIM Index)

Level: For the year 2008-09, the dealer satisfaction index was at level 80.
Trend: During 2006-07, the level increased by a slight amount and became constant in the
period 2007-09.
Comparison: From 2005-2007, Partner A was at a higher level than that of GCSL and later
during 2007-09, they both were at the same level.
GCSL DSI Region wise (TRIM Index)
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of index for West, South and East regions are 70, 70
and 75 respectively.
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level of defects per 10 machines has been
decreasing. While it has remained constant from 2007 to 2009
Comparison: During the period of 2005- 2008, level of South was the least, and among west
and east, west was at lower level. In 2008-09, West and South were at same level, while East
region was at a slightly higher value than them.
Overall Performance
Level: For the year 2008-09, overall performance was at 90% respondents.
Trend: The level first increased during 2006-07, then decreased in 2007-08 and then
increased in 2008-09.
Recommendation
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of recommendation was at 90% of respondents.
Trend: The level increased during 2006-07, then decreased in 2007-08 and then increased in
2008-09.
Distinct Market Advantage
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of distinct market advantage was at 90% of
respondents.
Trend: The level increased during 2006-07, then decreased during 2007-08 and again
increased in the period 2008-09.
Overall Satisfaction
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of overall satisfaction for service was 93% and that for
products was 88%.
Trend: The overall satisfaction level for both service and products in the period 2007-08 and
increased in the period 2008-09.
Comparison: The satisfaction level of both service and products was equal in both time
periods of 2006 from 2008. While in 2008-09, the satisfaction level for service has raised to
93%, whereas that of products has raised to 88%.
Trustworthy Company
Level: For the year 2008-09, the index level was at 90 for GCSL.
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level kept increasing and remained constant in
2008-09.
Comparison: During 2005-07, the level of Competitor 1 was higher than that of GCSL and
later during 2007-09, the became equal. So overall Trustworthiness of Competitor ha been
greater than that of GCSL.
Good Reputation
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of reputation for GCSL was at 95%.
Trend: Level decreased in 2006-07, then slight decrease in 2007-08, follwed by an increase in
2008-09
Comparison: In the period of 2007 to 2009, the reputation level of GCSL was greater than
that of competitor1. So, the reputation of GCSL is better than that of Competitor1.
Range of Equipment
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of index was at 95.
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level of index has been constantly increasing
Comparison: In the period 2007 to 2009, the level of ABC is higher than that of Competitor2
by a significant amount. Therefore, the overall range of equipment of ABC is more than that
of Competitor2.
Technologically Superior Equipment
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of index at 90.
Trend: The level increased gradually in the period 2006-07 and 2007-08 and stayed constant
in 2008-09
Comparison: Over the complete duration of 2005-2009, the level of index for Competitor1
had always been greater than that of GCSL. This implies that GCSL has more technologically
superior equipment than that of Competitor1
Sales People Keeping in Touch
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of index is at 60
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level of index had been constantly increasing
Comparison: Throughout the period of 2005-2009, the level of GCSL had been less than that
of Competitor 1. So Competitor1 is better at sales people keeping in touch compared to that
of GCSL.
Responsiveness of Personnel
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level of index had been at 95
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level of index had been constantly increasing
Comparison: Throughout the period 2005-09, the level of GCSL had been greater than that of
Competitor1. So, the responsiveness of personnel of GCSL is better than that of Competitor1.
Courtesy of Sales Personnel
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level was at around 97%
Trend: The level decreased in 2006-07, followed by a sharp increase in 2007-08 and hen a
slight decrease in the level in 2008-09
Comparison: Throughout the period from 2005-09, competitor1 had higher level of index
except in 2007-08 when GCSL was higher by a small amount. So overall courtesy of sales
personnel was good for Cometitor1 than for GSCL.
Facilitating Sales with Financing Options
Level: For the year 2008-09, the level was at 95
Trend: Over the period of 2005 to 2007, the level of index had been constantly increasing
Comparison: Throughout the period, the level of GCSL had been greater than that of
Competitor1, so GCSL had been better at facilitating sales with financing options than
Competitor
Overall Satisfaction
Level: The value had increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had consistently increased from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is significantly low compared to Comp1 and Comp2
Reliability of Equipment
Level: The value had increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had consistently increased from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is significantly low compared to Comp1
Reliability-Delivery Condition
Level: The value had decreased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value decreased initially, then it increased and then decreased again in 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1
Reliability-Durability
Level: The value did not change from 2007-08
Trend: The value remained constant across the years
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1
Quality of after sales support
Level: The value remained same as the value in 2007-08
Trend: The value decreased from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1
Quality of service-commissioning
Level: The value decreased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value decreased initially, then it increased and then decreased again in 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1
Value for Money
Level: The value increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value initially decreased and then increased till 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1
Fuel Efficiency
Level: The value increased slightly from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased consistently from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is low compared to that of Comp1

Running Cost
Level: The value increased slightly from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased consistently from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is significantly low compared to that of Comp1
Resale Value
Level: The value increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased consistently from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: GCSLs value was initially lower, but over the years GCSL dominated Comp1
Durability-Machine Uptime
Level: The value slightly increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased consistently from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: GCSLs value was initially higher but over the years Comp1 overtook GCSL
Timely Delivery
Level: The timely delivery index improved from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The timely delivery index has improved from 2005-06 to 2008-09 except for a dip in
2007-08
Comparison: The timely delivery index of GCSL was always better compared to Comp1
Overall Satisfaction-EH
Level: The Overall Satisfaction for EH category declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The Overall Satisfaction for EH category was highest in 2005-06 and decreased
consistently till 2008-09
Comparison: The Overall Satisfaction of EH category for GCSL was always better compared
to Comp1
Overall Satisfaction-WL
Level: The Overall Satisfaction for WL category slightly declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The Overall Satisfaction for WL category was highest in 2007-08 and remained
almost constant over the years
Comparison: The Overall Satisfaction of WL category for GCSL was significantly high
compared to Comp2
Overall Satisfaction-BL
Level: The Overall Satisfaction for BL category slightly improved from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The Overall Satisfaction for BL category had remained almost constant over the years
Comparison: The Overall Satisfaction of BL category for GCSL was significantly high
compared to Comp2
Overall Satisfaction-CR
Level: The Overall Satisfaction for BL category remained constant from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The Overall Satisfaction for BL category reached lowest in 2006-07 and increased
from 2006-07 to 2008-09
Dissatisfied Customers (%)
Level: The Percentage of Dissatisfied customers declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The Percentage of Dissatisfied customers was highest in 2005-06 and had been
consistently decreasing till 2008-09
Recommendation(Loyalty)
Level: The Loyalty index achieved was very low compared to the target set by GCSL
Trend: The Loyalty index improved from 2005-06 to 2006-07, then decreased till 2007-08
and increased till 2008-09
Comparison: Comp1 and Comp2 have substantially higher Loyalty Index compared to GCSL
Repurchase(Retention)
Level: Retention index in 2008-09 is higher compared to 2007-08
Trend: The retention index declined from 2005-06 to 2006-07 and then increased till 2008-09
Comparison: GCSL had very low retention index compared to Comp1 and Comp2 in 2005-
06, but improved significantly by 2008-09
Customer Retention Rate
Level: Customer Retention Rate in 2008-09 is higher compared to 2007-08
Trend: Customer Retention Rate was almost constant from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and increased
till 2008-09
Comparison: GCSL had lower % compared to MNC for the first 2 years but higher % for the
last 2 years
Turnover-Index
Level: The turnover index reduced from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The turnover index increased significantly from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and then
decreased in 2008-09
Comparison: The turnover index of GCSL is high compared to both Comp1 and Comp2
ROCE
Level: The ROCE of GCSL had decreased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The ROCE index had increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and then decreased in 2008-
09
Comparison: The ROCE index of GCSL is substantially high compared to both Partner A and
Comp1
PBIDT/Turnover
Level: The value had decreased substantially from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: Increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is substantially high compared to Comp1, Comp2 and
Comp4
Value added/Employee
Level: The value could not reach the target in 2008-09
Trend: The value first increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08, then decreased in 2008-09
Break-even point
Level: The value had slightly increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had consistently increased from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL is on lower side compared to Partner A and Comp1
Working Capital
Level: The value had increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had fluctuated highly and decreased from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL was always lower compared to Comp1
Asset Turnover
Level: The value decreased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL was always higher compared to Comp2
Current Ratio
Level: The value slightly increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had initially decreased and then increased till 2008-09
Comparison: GCSLs value was initially higher but over the years Comp2 dominated GCSL
Debt to Equity
Level: The value decreased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value decreased significantly from 2005-06 to 2008-09
Receivables
Level: The value increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value initially remained constant and the increased till 2008-09
Comparison: The value of GCSL was always lower compared to that of Comp1

% Contribution (EH Variant A1+)

Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
% Contribution (EH Variant A1)
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
% Contribution (EH Variant A1++)
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
% Contribution (WL Variant L1)
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
% Contribution (CR Variant C1)
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
% Mkt. Share- Product Group EH
Level: GCSL could not reach the target in 2008-09
Trend: The value is constant over the years
Comparison: The value of GCSL is high compared to both Comp1 and Comp4
Overall satisfaction index
Over the years satisfaction in management, non-management has increased. Non-
management satisfaction has increased the most over 2006 to 2009.
Overall Engagement index
Level: in 2008-09 engagement index has reached above 90
Trend: both Mgmt and Non-mgmt has shown growth over the period
Comparison: Mgmt and Non-mgmt both has increase their involvement in work.
Advocay Index
Level: both reached at index of 90 at 2008-09
Trend: Mgmt index has increase significantly faster than non-mgmt, both showing increasing
trend.
Comparison: Mgmt is now more involve in Advocay.

Loyalty index
Level: at 2008-09 over the 90 for non-mgmt and slightly below 90 and above 60 for mgmt.
Trend: Mgmt showing increasing and non-mgmt shows stable trend.
Comparison: management loyalty has increased and non-mgmt is changed
Satisfaction index-function (mgmt)
Level: in 2008-09 Plant1 (80), S&M(between 70-80) plant2(80), Design (between 70-80)
Trend: increasing in all
Comparison: satisfaction has increased in all, maximum in design , showing increasing trend
of satisfaction.
Satisfaction index-function (mgmt)
Level: in 2008 QA(80),SSPC(between70-80) Regions(slightly above 80)
Trend: QA has slight decrease, SSPC decrease in 2006-07 the fast increase, region stable
Comparison: SSPC and QA has shown decrease in 2006-07 while SSPC was stable after that
all have shown increase.
Engagement Index- Function (Mgmt)
Level: 90 and above 90 for all in 2008-09
Trend: Increase in engagement in all fields
Comparison: Plant 2 has shown maximum engagement increase, while plant 1, S&M, and
design has also shown increase but comparatively slow.
Engagement Index (Mgmt)
Level: QA (80), SSPC (slightly below 80),Regions(80)
Trend: Increase in all slightly decrease in QA in 2006-07 then again increase
Comparison: SSPC was stable till 2007-08 after that in has shown increase ,QA and Regions
has shown increase all of them are still below the target.
Engagement Index- Function (Non-Mgmt)
Level: above 90 for Plant 1, Plant 2 and Design and 90 for S&M
Trend: continue increasing for all
Comparison: Engagement has increased over the period and showing increasing trend, but
still slightly below the target
Engagement Index -(Non-Mgmt)
Level: QA ( 80),SSPC (below 80) and Regions (above 80)
Trend: QA and SSPC slow increase, stable in regions from 2006-06 to 2008-09
Comparison: QA has shown continue increase ,SSPC was stable till 2007-08 then increased
and regions are stable till 2006-07.
No. of kaamyabi awardees
Level: about 200 in 2008-09
Trend: increasing
Comparison : because of increase in engagement and satisfaction performance has increased
and also awardees
No. of CRISP Awardees
Level: Above 120 in 2008-09
Trend: increasing
Comparison: increased engagement has increased CRISP awardees
Idea generation ratio
Level: GCSL(60+) and INSSAN avg(below 40)
Trend: rapidly increasing for GCSL compare to INSSAN Avg
Comparison: engagements and Satisfaction are directly correlated with performance and also
Idea generation
No. of enployees in CRISP,TPM & TOC
Level: CRISP (above 250),TPM(1000) and TOC(below 250)
Trend: increasing on all rapidly in TPM
Comparison: TPM has shown maximum increase over the year while CRISP and TOC has
also showslow but continuous increase
Employee Confidence in leadership
Level: above 60 fro all GCSL, Ind avg and BM in 2008-09
Trend: Increasing for GCSL and Ind avg constant for BM
Comparison: GCSL has higer growth over the year and higer then Ind Avg.
Number of Employees In CFTs
Level: in 2008-09 for GCSL~ 400
Trend: increasing
Comparison: Number of employees in CFTs has increased over the year it has almost
doubled in 2008-09
% unauthorized absenteeism
Level: Ind avg is 2 and for GCSl is very low
Trend: increase in absenteeism in GCSl
Comparison: Abseenteesim has increased over the time in GCSl but its very low compare to
Ind Avg.
No. of Grievance received/resolved
Level: At 2008-09 both received and resolve below 50
Trend: Increase in resolved and decrease in received
Comparison: GCSL has improve his system to resolve grievances, also improved in services
hence decrease in grievances received.
Overall attrition rate
Level: Ind avg. 15.0% in GCSL its very low then GCSL in 2008-09
Trend: Attrition rate has decreased over the years
Comparison: with increase in employees satisfaction with time we can see the decrease in
Attrition rate.
Employee training
Level: GCSL(below 13 increasing), JRDQM BM (13)
Trend: increasing in GCSL
Comparison: GCSL has increased the employee training programme
Leadership development training
Level: GCSl ~400 in 2008-09
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: GCSL has increased Leadership development training programme with time.
Composite Leadership score
Level: GCSL below 5(~4)
Trend: constant
Comparison: Composite leadership score was constant from 2005-06
Succession planning- key positions
Level: 100% for mapped, and slightly below of 100 for filled and internal positing in 2008-
09
Trend: increasing
Comparison: filled and internal positioning are increasing and reaching the 100%
Training Quality Krik Patrick Lvl.-1
Level: below 5 and more the 4 for both GCSL and JRDQM BM in 2008-09
Trend: increasing for GCSL
Comparison: Training quality is increasing In GCSL
Training Quality Krik Patrick Lvl.-3
Level: above 4 for GCSL
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: Training Quality in GCSl has increased but its still below the target.
On job training Mandays as % of total training
Level: GCSL 50
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: GCSL has reached 50% Mandays of total training and increasing.
% workforce Trained in TPM
Level: GCSL 80% in 2008-09
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: workforce is trained in TPM has increased with time and reached to 80%
% Management & professional certified accessories
Level: GCSL 40%
Trend: increasing
Comparison: GCSL is increasing Management and professional certified accessories
% Management & professional trained as ISO/OHSAA auditors
Level: GCSL above 15% in 2008-09
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: GCSL is increasing its employee quality with trainings
Training of customer & dealer personnel
Level: customer: 100%, dealer about 70% in 2008-09
Trend: increasing
Comparison: GCSL has trained 100% customer personnel and 70% dealer and increasingly
training them.
% Workforce and skill Level 3 Mfg
Level: GCSL above 80%
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: Level 3 skilled workforce in GCSL is increasing and reaching the target
Competency Mapping-% coverage
Level: GCSL 50% in 2008-09
Trend: stable till 2007-08 then decrease in 2008-09
Comparison: Competency Mapping-% coverage has decreased in 2008-09 slightly
Workforce strength & turnover indexes
Level: workforce 100% and turnover ~90% in 2008-09
Trend: increasing in both workforce and turnover till 2007-08 and in 2008-09 decrease in
turnover while increase in workforce.
Comparison: with increase in workforce ,turnover has increased till 2007-08 and reached its
maximum now in 2008-09 due to economic slowdown, increase in workforce will not
increase the turnover so compare to increase in workforce in 2008-09 we saw decrease in
turnover.
Compliance to Recruitment
Level: GCSL in 2008-09 ~90%
Trend: slightly Increasing
Comparison: GCSL has almost constant compliance to recruitment
% New Recruits at Skill level 2&3
Level: GCSL ~80%
Trend: increasing
Analsis: GCSL is increasing Skilled employees
recruitment cycle time
Level: GCSL 8weeks Partner A 4 weeks in 20058-09
Trend: Decrease in recruitment cycle time
Comparison: GCSL is trying to reduce in recruitment cycle time and trying to achieve the 4
week time
% Workforce in Improvement activities
Level: GCSL 60% 2008-09
Trend: decrease
Comparison: GCSLs workforce in improvement activities has decreased over the years
Job rotation
Level: GCSL =6 in 2008-09
Trend: constant in 2005-06,2006-07 and2007-08 and increased in 2008-09
Comparison: GCSL trying to increase JOB rotation to increase employee engagement
% Key Customers and sites visited
Level: 60% in 2008-09 for GCSL
Trend: Increasing
Comparison: GCSL is increasing the customers and sites visits to improve in services and
trying to achieve 100%
Safety & Environment Training
Level: GCSL could not reach the target in 2008-09
Trend: The value increased from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and decreased in 2008-09
No. of Unsafe Conditions Removed
Level: The value increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09 for Identified; The value remained
constant from 2007-08 to 2008-09 for Eliminated
Trend: The value increased consistently from 2005-06 to 2008-09 for Identified; The value
remained constant from 2005-06 to 2008-09 for Eliminated
No. of Near Miss Cases Identified
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value initially increased and then decreased till 2008-09
No. of Near Reportable accidents
Level: The value declined from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value initially was constant, then increased in 2007-08 and then decreased till
2008-09
Work Force Satisfaction on Services & Benefits
Level: The value had increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09 for management and non-
management
Trend: The value had consistently increased from 2005-06 to 2008-09 for management
whereas the non-management category saw a low in 2006-07
Union Satisfaction Index
Level: The value had increased from 2007-08 to 2008-09
Trend: The value had consistently increased from 2005-06 to 2008-09