Analysis of Graphs

7.2.1- Dealer Satisfaction Index

GCSL saw an increased index of dealer satisfaction over the period 2005-07. In contrast, its partner underwent a decrease in the dealer satisfaction.

The dealer satisfaction of GCSL was below that of its partner in the years 2005-07, remaining constant in the period. While in the following couple of years, dealer satisfaction increased of GCSL was at par with its partner.

7.2.2

While all the three regions of the GCSL showed an unstable growth of its DSI, the east region had a more growth in the first two years (2005-07), followed by west and south.

All three showed a decrease in the following year. Only the west region was stagnant in the next couple of years (2007-09), whereas south and east had an increase in their TRIM index, but less as compared to the initial years.

7.2.3

The overall performance of the GCSL had a bit of increase in the first two years, which then decreased in the following year (2007-08). The final year (2008-09) saw an increase in its performance as compared to the previous one, but remained the same with that of 2006-07.

7.2.4

The recommendation rates of the GCSL had an unstable growth in the whole period (2005-09), with the lowest in the initial year and the highest in the final. The graphs increased from 2005-06 to 2006-07, while it decreased a bit in the following year (2007-08). The final year saw an increase in GCSL’s recommendation percentages.

7.2.12

While the responsiveness of personnel of the GCSL were constant in the first two years (2005-07), its competitor had a stagnant rate of the personnel in the first three years (2005-08).

GCSL’s competitor had an increase in responsiveness of personnel in the final year. Whereas GCSL had a stable growth in its personnel’s responsiveness rate from 2006-07 to 2008-09.

7.2.13

The courtesy of sales personnel of GCSL had a bit of decrease from 2005-06 to 2006-07, whereas it increased in the following year (2007-08) and remained constant in the period 2007-09.

But, GCSL’s competitor had almost the same rate of its courtesy of sales personnel in the whole period, with just a bit of decrease in the year 2006-07, but mostly remained the same.

7.2.14

The facilitating sales with financing options of GCSL were stagnant for the first couple of years (2005-07), whereas it increased in the following year 2007-08 and remained constant for the next two years (2007-09).

In contrast, GCSL’s competitor had a stable growth in its facilitating sales with financing options in the whole period (2005-09), but remained lower than GCSL in all the four years.

7.2.21

Though the overall satisfaction of GCSL had a stable growth in the whole period 2005-09, it was much lower than its two competitors.

While both of the competitors had a stable growth, competitor 2 had more overall satisfaction than the other one.

7.2.22

The whole period of 2005-09 saw a stable growth of GCSL’s reliability of equipment. But, GCSL’s equipment’s reliability was less than its competitor.

GCSL’s competitor had almost the same rate of reliability of equipment in the whole period, only a bit of increase in 2007-08.

7.2.23

The reliability-delivery condition of GCSL had a series of alternate increment and decrement in its levels over the whole period (2005-09). The levels decreased in 2006-07, followed by an increase in 2007-08 and decrease in 2008-09.

Whereas its competitor was constant in the couple of initial years (2005-07), but underwent a decrease in the following couple of years (2007-09).

7.2.24

The reliability-durability levels of the GCSL was stagnant the whole period (2005-09), with a score just below than 90, and didn’t see either an increase or a decrease in its levels.

While the reliability-durability levels of GCSL’s competitor had a constant decrease in the first three years (2005-08), it increased in the final year (2008-09), equalling with the levels of 2006-07.

7.2.27

The Value for Money of GCSL has been growing since 2006, with an exception on the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. In a comparison with the competitors there is a general trend of increase in the value for Money of GCSL.

In the first two years data presented in the graph, value for money of the competitors grew while that of GCSL slumped down. But in the later couple of years. GCSL saw a growth while competitors were stagnant.

7.2.28

Fuel efficiency of GCSL, being stagnant in 2005-06 and ’07, grew over the period of 2006-07 and ’09.

The competitors saw a decrease in fuel efficiency over the initial three years (from 2005-08) while had a little growth in the following year.

GCSL has seen an increase in its fuel efficiency compared to the competitors over the entire period.

7.2.29

While the absolute Running cost of GCSL has been low as compared to its competitors over the entire period (2005-09), it has seen an increase. The industry on the other hand decreased its running cost over 2005-08 with the exception of the last year.

7.2.30

GCSL has shown a stable increase in the resale value. Remaining at par with the competitors during 2006-07, it has surpassed them in the following years. The competitors, in contrast, have slumped in the resale value after 2005-06 while maintaining an almost stable resale value in the following three years.

7.3.06

The