Garrett’s ranking technique

Garrett’s ranking technique was used to rank the preference indicated by the

respondents on different factors. As per this method, respondents have been asked to

assign the rank for all factors and the outcomes of such ranking have been converted into

score value with the help of the following formula:

Percent position = 100 (Rij – 0.5)

Nj

Where

Rij = Rank given for the ith variable by jth respondents

Nj = Number of variable ranked by jth respondents

With the help of Garrett’s Table, the percent position estimated is converted into scores.

Then for each factor, the scores of each individual are added and then total value of

scores and mean values of score is calculated. The factors having highest mean value is

considered to be the most important factor.

Percentile position

RANK PERCENTILE POSITION

1 6.25

2 18.75

3 31.25

4 43.75

5 56.25

6 68.75

7 81.25

8 93.75

For the above percentile positions, Garrett’s table gives the scores that represent the

equivalent rank on a scale of 100 points which are given in the table no…….

Garrett’s score

RANK PERCENTILE

POSITION

GARRETT’S SCORE

1 6.25 80

2 18.75 68

3 31.25 60

4 43.75 53

5 56.25 47

6 68.75 40

7 81.25 32

8 93.75 20

To identify the most important factor influencing the quality of coconut

coir fibres by using Garrett’s ranking technique.

Objective:

To identify the most important factor influencing the quality of coconut coir fibres

by using Garrett’s ranking technique.

The following factors were considered for identifying the most important factors

that influences the quality of coir fibres.

1) Poor Quality of Raw Materials 2) Absence Of Machine Periodical

Maintenance 3) Water Scarcity 4) Lack of Drying facility

5) Insufficient Spares 6) Inadequate Quality Control

7) Lack of Updation of Technology 8) Lack of Training to employees

The Garrett’s score for the above eight factors calculated are shown in the table…….

Poor Quality of Raw Materials

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 14 80 1120

2 8 68 544

3 11 60 660

4 5 53 265

5 0 47 0

6 2 40 80

7 0 32 0

8 0 20 0

TOTAL 40 2669

Absence of Machine Periodical Maintenance

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 16 80 1280

2 16 68 1088

3 5 60 300

4 3 53 159

5 0 47 0

6 0 40 0

7 0 32 0

8 0 20 0

TOTAL 40 2827

Water ScarcityRANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 4 80 320

2 9 68 612

3 7 60 420

4 7 53 371

5 4 47 188

6 5 40 200

7 0 32 0

8 4 20 80

TOTAL 40 2191

Lack of Drying Facility

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 6 80 480

2 3 68 204

3 6 60 360

4 8 53 424

5 8 47 376

6 5 40 200

7 2 32 64

8 2 20 40

TOTAL 40 2148

Insufficient Spares

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 0 80 0

2 0 68 0

3 0 60 0

4 4 53 212

5 2 47 94

6 11 40 440

7 10 32 320

8 13 20 260

TOTAL 40 1326

Inadequate Quality Control

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 0 80 0

2 0 68 0

3 2 60 120

4 3 53 159

5 13 47 611

6 3 40 120

7 15 32 480

8 4 20 80

TOTAL 40 1570

Lack of Updation of Technology

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 0 80 0

2 4 68 272

3 4 60 240

4 9 53 477

5 8 47 376

6 5 40 200

7 5 32 160

8 5 20 100

TOTAL 40 1825

Lack of Training of Employees

RANKING BY

THE

RESPONDENTS

FREQUENCIES GARRETT’S

SCORE

TOTAL

SCORE

(frequencies

X Garrett’s

Score)

1 0 80 0

2 0 68 0

3 5 60 300

4 1 53 53

5 5 47 235

6 9 40 360

7 8 32 256

8 12 20 240

TOTAL 40 1444

Result of Garrett’s ranking technique

Sl.No Particulars Total

score

Rank Percentage

1 Absence of Machine Periodical

Maintenance

2827 1 17.67

2 Poor Quality of Raw Materials 2669 2 16.68

3 Water Scarcity 2191 3 13.69

4 Lack of Drying Facility 2148 4 13.42

5 Lack of Updation of

Technology

1825 5 11.40

6 Inadequate Quality Control 1570 6 9.81

7 Lack of Training of Employees 1444 7 9.02

8 Insufficient Spares 1326 8 8.28

Influencing Factors

0

4

8

12

16

2017.67 16.68

13.69 13.4211.4

9.81 9.02 8.28

Series1

Inference

By using Garrett’s ranking method it is found that, the factors ‘Absence of

Machine Periodical Maintenance’ and ‘Poor Quality of raw Materials’ are the major

factors that influence the poor quality of coir fibres.

The least factor that influences the poor quality of coconut coir fibre is

‘Insufficient Spares’

Conclusion

Therefore most of the respondents (coconut fibre manufacturers) have considered

Absence of Machine Periodical Maintenance as the most important factor leading to poor

quality of coir fibres.

Factors Leading To Poor Quality

Sl.No Particulars Rank

1 Poor Quality of Raw Materials

2 Absence of Machine Periodical Maintenance

3 Water Scarcity

4 Lack of Drying Facility

5 Insufficient Spares

6 Inadequate Quality Control

7 Lack of Training of Employees

8 Lack of Updation of Technology

Additional Cost incurred

• Transportation of Materials within the factory = Rs. 122.40/shift

• Material Failure Cost = 112.30/shift• Extra labour for rejecting brown husks = 500/shift• Extra Labour For Cleaning Husks = 400/shift• Profit not earned due to Machine breakdown = 169/shift