Processes at Check post
Drivers were asked to score their perceptions on each of the process parameters (presented in the
questionnaire) on a 1 to 5 scale. The difference in the score of each process parameter after
computerization and before computerization is computed for each respondent. A positive value of
such difference conveys an improvement and a negative value conveys deterioration /
dissatisfaction of the process parameter with reference to the respondent. These values are
averaged over all the respondents to obtain the overall impact of computerization on each process
parameter. The following table summarizes the analysis of observations. Sections below present
an analysis of the results of each process parameter.
Process Parameters
Perceptions Weighing Payment
Handling
Official
Receipt
Document
Checking
Document
Depositing
Document
Collection
Number of Respondents 110 86 73 64 59 58
Average SL Before CICP 2.33 3.00 2.67 2.70 2.73 2.71
% perceiving deterioration 21% 34% 5% 13% 10% 9%
Average SL deterioration (1.52) (2.10) (2.50) (2.38) (2.50) (2.40)
% perceiving no difference 24% 40% 64% 61% 61% 62%
% perceiving improvement 55% 27% 30% 27% 29% 29%
Average SL Improvement 2.77 2.45 2.91 3.00 3.00 3.00
Average SL After CICP 3.54 3.00 3.49 3.25 3.42 3.46
Overall Impact 1.22 -0.05 0.74 0.50 0.61 0.67
Control group Respondents 9 8 10 9 8 9
Average SL : control group 3.11 3.38 3.50 3.56 3.38 3.56
Note: SL refers to Satisfaction Level, which is measured over a scale of 1-5.
CICP refers to Computerized Inter State Check Post
Parentheses refer to negative value of the figures given.
As an example, the weighing process parameter (column) is explained below:
In the process parameter of weighing, the number of respondents is 110. They gave an average
satisfaction level score of 2.33 to the manual system (before CICP). Thus, 21% of 110 respondents
perceive deterioration in the weighing process. The average deterioration in satisfaction level is a
negative score of 1.52.(Subtracting the average score of before and after CICP). 24% have perceived no
difference in the weighing process, after computerization. 55% have perceived improvement in the process
and the average satisfaction level score given to this process is 2.77 (on a scale of 1 to 5) The actual
average score provided by the respondents is 3.54. Hence the overall impact of the weighing process after
CICP is a positive figure of 1.22. The number of control group respondents totaled 9 and their average
satisfaction level is 3.11 (on a scale of 1 to 5).
Based on these readings, the analysis for each process parameter is provided in the following sections.