MBA -Project Study Report

Project Study Report onStrategic Intent of Milma

With special reference toThiruvananthapuram Dairy

(A Division of Thiruvananthapuram RegionalCo-operative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd)

Project Study report submitted in partial fulfillment of requirementfor the award of degree of

Master of Business Administration of Kerala University

Submitted byAlexander T C

Register No. 401Under the Guidance of

Faculty Guide Project Guide

Institute of Management in Kerala,University of Kerala,

KariyavattomThiruvananthapuram-6950581

Kerala StatePH: 0471-2301145, 2301513 Ext: 286/296

Email: [email protected]

1. Dr. J. Rajan. M.Com .PhD,Director & Faculty –Strategic ManagementIMK- University of Kerala

2. Dr. Rajan Nai r , M .Co m, PhD,Facu l ty- Market in g ManagementIMK- University of Kerala

Mr. G. Rajesh,Manager- MarketingThiruvananthapuram DairyTRCMPU Ltd.

2 | P a g e

Project Report _Alexander_T_C_ _MBA_ E_ Batch_2010-2012_IMK_UoK_

I. Project Title

Project Study Report on

Strategic Intent of Milma

With special reference to

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy

- A Division of TRCMPU Ltd.

( T h i r uv an an tha p u ra m R e g i on a l

C o -o p e ra t iv e M i l k P ro du c e r s ’ U n ion L t d )

3 | P a g e


II. Declaration

I declare that the Organization Study report entitled “Strategic

Intent of Milma With special reference to Thiruvananthapuram

Dairy ” submitted by me for the award of degree of Master of

Business Administration of the University of Kerala is my own work.

The report has not been submitted for the award of any other degree of

this university or any other university.

Alexander T C

Register No.3001

(Name & Signature of Student)

Place: Thiruvananthapuram

Dated: 14th December 2012

4 | P a g e


III. Certificate of the Organization

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY(ISO 9001:2008 Certified)

Post Box No.4 Ambalathara, Poonthura P O, Thiruvananthapuram 695026Telephone: +91-471-2381410, 2382562, 2381228, 2384148, 2382982


No.TD/PER/36/92/Vol.13/3268 05.12.2012

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr Alexander T C , MBA student of Institute of

Management in Kerala University of Kerala, Tvm has successfully completed the

project work titled “Strategic Intent of Milma With special reference to

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy ” for 45 days starting from 17.09.2012 to 31.10.2012

as per of his MBA curriculum.

We wish him all success for future endeavors

SD/-

Manager (HRD)

5 | P a g e


IV. Certificate of the Institution

This is to certify that the Project Study report titled

“Strategic Intent of Milma With special reference to

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy ” submitted here is a bonafide record of

the work done by Mr Alexander T C (Register No 401), under my

guidance in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the

Degree in Master of Business Administration of the University of

Kerala and this work has not been submitted by him for the award of any

other degree or title of recognition earlier

Director Faculty Guide

Dr Rajan Nair

6 | P a g e


V. Acknowledgement

Here I acknowledge my sincere appreciation to all those who

stood by me to make this study report a success. I must acknowledge

special thanks to the management, especially to Sri. Baby Joseph,

Managing Director, TRCMPU Ltd, Mr B S Jyothi, General Manager

(I/C), Mr. G. Rajesh , Manager – Marketing , Mr K Polachan ,

Manager –HR and all the other Section Heads and staff Members of

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy for their whole hearted support and

contributions to make this report meaningful and relevant.

I am much thankful to Dr. J Rajan, Director-IMK, faculty

members and staff of IMK for their support and guidance throughout

the programme. Also special salutes to my faculty guide Dr. Rajan Nair

for his valuable reviews and suggestions that made this report

presentable.

Finally a word acknowledging my whole hearted thanks to

my wife Beena and our kids Emy and Ann for their constant support

throughout the last two years to help me complete my MBA

programme and complete the project work.

7 | P a g e


VI. Contents

Sq.# Page Description Page #

I. Title Page 2II. Declaration 3

III. Certificate of the Organization 4IV. Certificate of the Institution 5V. Acknowledgement 6

VI. Contents 7VII. List of Tables & Charts 8

VIII. Executive Summary 13IX. Chapter 1. Introduction 18

IX.01 Statement of the Problem 22IX.02 Review Literature 23IX.03 Objectives 25IX.04 Research Design 261X.04.01 Type Of Research Design 281X.04.02 Date Collection From Secondary Sources 291X.04.03 Date Collection From Primary Sources 301X.04.04 Sampling Techniques 311X.04.05 Scaling Techniques 331X.04.06 Data Analysis Tools & Techniques 36IX.05 Scope of the Study 43IX.06 Limitations 44IX.07 Chapterisation 45

X. Chapter 2. Industry Profile 46XI. Chapter 3. Company Profile 56

XI.01 Name, Location & Address 57XI.02 History 58XI.03 Management 59XI.04 Strategic Intent 60XI.05 Products 61XI.06 Organizational Structure 62

XII. Chapter 4. Data Analysis Interpretation 74XII.01XII.01 Part–1 Data Analysis &Interpretation – Customers’ 75

XII.02 Part–2 Data Analysis & Interpretation – Farmers’ 112XIII. Chapter 5 ETOP ,OCP & SAP Analysis 156XIV. Chapter 6. Findings , Conclusions & Suggestions 160XV. Findings 160

XVI. Conclusions 171XVII. Suggestions 173

XVIII. Bibliography 175XIX. Appendix 176

8 | P a g e


VII. List of Tables & Charts

VII.1 List of TablesTable

# Title of Tables Page. #.

1 List of Research variables 27

2 Population size – Farmer Respondents 31

3 Population size – Customer respondents 32

4 Likert’s Scale Illustration 34

5 Suggested Data Analysis Procedures for Likert-Type and Likert Scale Data 36

6 Statistics on– Production Cost, Yield, Cost Factor Ratio & Procurement Rate 55

7 Structure of Board of Directors 59

8 Milma Product Mix: Marketed by Thiruvananthapuram dairy 59

9 Quality Standards Of Out Going Milk 68

10 Milma Products:- 70

11 Customer - Population Data Source – National Population Senses -2011 76

12 Respondent -Age Group 76

13 Respondent – Occupation 76

14 Respondent – Age Segment 77

15 Respondent – Customer family Size 77

16 Respondent – Average family Size 77

17 Respondent - Average user Segment Spread 77

18 Geographical Gender Spread of Respondent -Customers 78

19 Milk Usage 79

20 Milk usage Type wise 79

21 Milk Consumption Pattern – Source wise 80

22 Milk usages _ Milma vs Others 80

23 Geographical Spread Milma Milk Share 81

24 Milk market share Milma vs Others Urban Mix 82

25 Milk market share Milma vs Others Rural Mix 83

26 Meeting of Demand d of milk – Source Wise 85

27 Quality of milk – sum score tabulation 86

28 Quality of Milk – Percentage Analysis 87

29 Quality of Milk – Urban Vs Mean Score Value 88

30 Quality of Milk – Urban Vs Rural - Analysis 88

31 Quality of Milk – Urban Vs Rural –User & Non User Analysis 89

32 Quality of Milk –User & Non User Analysis 89

9 | P a g e


33 Quality of Milk - Chi Square test for Association –Observed value Table 90

34 Quality of Milk - Chi Square test for Association –Expected value Table 90

35 Price of Milk – Percentage Analysis and Mean score value 91

36 Price of Milk - Chi Square test - Users vs Non Users - Observed value Table 92

37 Price of Milk - Chi Square test - Users Vs Non users –Expected value Table 92

38 Price of Milk - Chi Square test Users Vs Non Users –Value Tabulation 92

39 Price of Milk – Urban Vs Rural - Analysis 93

40 Price of Milk - Chi Square test - Urban vs Rural - Observed value Table 94

41 Price of Milk - Chi Square test - Urban vs Rural –Expected value Table 94

42 Price of Milk - Chi Square test - Urban vs Rural –Value Tabulation 95

43 Price of Milk - Acceptance – Overall rating 96

44 Brand Loyalty - Urban Vs Rural User –Non user Analysis 96

45 Brand Loyalty - Urban Vs Rural User – Non User Percentage & Mean Score 98

46 Market Access – Urban Vs Rural Analysis 99

47 Market Access - Urban Vs Rural User –Non User –Percentage & Mean Score 101

48 Market Access - User – Non user - Mean Score Value 101

49 Market Access – Urban Vs Rural - User Non user - Analysis 102

50 Market awareness – Percentage Score 102

51 Market awareness – Mean Score value 103

52 Market Awareness – Urban vs Rural Analysis 104

53 Market Awareness – user Vs Non User - Analysis 105

54 Value Expectation – Urban Vs Rural Analysis 105

55 Value Expectation – Urban Vs Rural User – Non User Analysis 106

56 Value Expectation – Percentage & Mean Score Value 107

57 Value Expectation Urban Vs Rural Divide Analysis 108

58 Overall Rating by Customer -Level of Satisfaction - Users 108

59 Overall Rating by Customer -Level of Satisfaction - Non Users 109

60 Overall Rating by Customer -User Non user Percentage & Mean Score Value 110

61 Farmers Survey Sample - Statistics 113

62 Farming Pattern In terms of No of Animals Owned 114

63 Strength of farmers - based on No of Animals Owned 114

64 Daily Per Animal production Level 115

65 Milk Yield Per Animal 115

66 Age Distribution Of farmers 116

67 Age & experience of farmers 117

68 Farming Potential _ Survey Score 117

69 Statistics on Milk production –Consumption & Procurement 118

70 Hypothetical Case -1 : Analysis on Milk Pouring Strategy & Profit Margin 121

10 | P a g e





74 Hypothetical Case Analysis – Summary Table 125

75 Acceptance of Milma Management - Percentage & Mean Score Value 127

76 Public relation & Communication - Percentage & Mean Score Value 128

77 Acceptance of Organization - Percentage & Mean Score Value 129

78 Dairy Farming Prospectus & Dependency - Percentage & Mean Score Value 130

79 Milk production Enhancement Programme - Percentage & Mean Score Value 131

80 Farmers’ reliance on Milma - Percentage & Mean Score Value 132

81 Hypothetical Case Analysis – Summary Table 133

82 Remunerative price - Percentage & Mean Score Value 134

83 Role pf Primary APCOS - Analysis - Percentage & Mean Score Value 135

84 Overall rating Acceptance rating on Performance of Milma 136

85 Survey Score – Farmers’ Acceptance rating of Milma 137

86 Reasons for Mixed Poring strategy - Mean Score value 138

87 Reasons for Mixed Poring strategy – percentage Analysis Value 139

88 Reasons for Mixed Poring strategy – Reasons Wise % Score 139

89 MPEP’s – Usefulness - Scheme Wise Acceptance Score 141

90 MPEP – production Incentive - % Score & Mean Score Value 142

91 MPEP – Cattle feed Fodder Supply - % Score & Mean Score Value 143

92 MPEP – Veterinary Service - % Score & Mean Score Value 144

93 MPEP – Calf Adoption - % Score & Mean Score Value 145

94 MPEP – Free cattle Insurance & Feed - % Score & Mean Score Value 146

95 MPEP – Artificial Insemination - % Score & Mean Score Value 147

96 MPEP Cattle Fodder Cultivation - % Score & Mean Score Value 148

97 MPEP – Merit Scholarship & Awards - % Score & Mean Score Value 149

98 MPEP – Gosureksha & Gosamwarthini Campaign - % Score & Mean Score 150

99 MPEP – Personal Accident Insurance - % Score & Mean Score Value 151

100 MPEP Interest Free Loan Using Revolving Fund - % Score & Mean Score Value 152

101 MPEP – Cattle Insurance - % Score & Mean Score Value 153

102 Overall Rating of MPEP’s 154

103 Farmers’ Survey MPEP item Wise % Score & Mean Score – Malayalam 155

104 Farmers’ Survey MPEP item Wise % Score & Mean Score - English 155

105 ETOP – Environmental Threats & Opportunity Profile 157

106 OCP – Organizational Capability Profile 158

107 SAP - Strategic Advantage Profile 158

11 | P a g e


VII.2 List of FiguresChart # Title Of Charts & Figures Page. No.

1 Milma –Organizational Structure 20

2 Global Factory Milk Use Product Wise-2010 48

3 Global Cow Numbers And Productivity 49

4 Global Milk Production 49

5 Per Capita Grams Per Day Availability Of Milk 50

6 Indian Dairy Industry- Raw Milk Consumption Vs Product Conversion 51

7 Milk Production In 1000 Mt Up to Feb 29, 2012 54

8 Organizational Structure TVM Dairy 62

9 Process Cycle -Milk 67

10 Process Cycle -Sambaram 67

11 Process Cycle -Ghee 67

12 Organizational Structure Maintenance Department 71

13 Organizational Structure Stores Department 72

14 Milk Consumption Rate 78

15 Milk Usage 79

16 Milma Milk Usage 80

17 Market Share Of Milma Vs Others 81

18 Urban Market Share Distribution 82

19 Rural Market Share Distribution 83

20 Urban Rural Mix- Urban Market 84

21 Urban Rural Mix- Rural Market 84

22 Factors Affecting Quality- Mean Score 87

23 Quality Acceptance-User Vs Non-User Divide 90

24 Agreement On Milma Milk Price-User Vs Non-User Divide 93

25 Price Acceptance-Urban Vs Rural Divide 95

26 Extent Of Brand Loyalty Of Milma -Users 97

27 Extent Of Brand Loyalty Of Milma-Non-Users 97

28 Market Access of Milma Milk 99

29 Market Access of milma milk – Urban & Rural Divide 100

30 Market Awareness Urban Rural Divide 103

31 Market Awareness Level among User & Non user 104

32 Urban Rural user expectation Level on Value Addition 106

33 User Non User expectation Level on Value Addition 107

12 | P a g e


34 Customer Function over all Mean Score 109

35 Overall Customer Function rating 110

36 Overall Customer Function Rating – Urban & Rural User Divide 111

37 Overall Customer Function Rating – Non User Urban & Rural Divide 111

38 Overall Customer Function Rating – User Non User Divide 111

39 Milk Flow - Per Day Per Animal 119

40 Acceptance of Milma Management 127

41 Public Relation and Communication 129

42 Acceptance of the Organization 129

43 Dairy farming Prospects 130

44 Milk Production Enhancement 131

45 Farmers reliance on Milma 132

46 Remunerative Price 134

47 Role of Primary Apcos 135

48 Overall Rating of Performance 136

49 Major reasons for Milk Diversion 139

50 Production Incentive - % Score 142

51 Cattle feed & Fodder Supply - 143

52 Veterinary service 144

53 Calf Adoption 145

54 Free Insurance & Feed 146

55 Artificial Insemination 147

56 Cattle Fodder Cultivation 148

57 Merit Scholarship & Awards 149

58 Gosureksha & Gosamwarthani Campaign 150

59 Personal Accident Insurance 151

60 Interest Free Loan Using Revolving Fund 152

61 Cattle Insurance 153

62 Overall MPEP Rating 154

13 | P a g e


VIII. Executive Summary

A 45 day long Project study is carried out in Part fulfillment of the

two years MBA Programme offered by Institute of Management In Kerala, University

Of Kerala. The management subject area selected for this study is Strategic

Management. The broad problem area identified is the Strategic Intent of Milma that

vouches socio-economic end benefits to member farmers. To this end milma has set the

objective of “Farmer’s Prosperity through Customer Satisfaction”.

With in the identified broad problem area, this study attempts to find

an answer to question, whether milma could strike a balance between its twin objectives

of providing remunerative price to farmers by supply of competitively priced good

quality milk & milk products to its potential customers?

The term milma is the brand name owned by Kerala state

cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, which is an apex to the 3 Regional Milk

Producers Unions in Kerala. Thiruvananthapuram dairy is one of the Business Unit and

this study is limited within the operational area of Thiruvananthapuram dairy.

70 % of the milk production and consumption happens within an

unorganized sector and only 30% is in the organized sector. Therefore this study has a

major constrain of being conducted within the organized sector. Analysis of data shows a

huge gap between milk demand and supply as explained below. The estimated demand

in the district of Thiruvananthapuram is 10.91 Lakhs Liters. Milma processes average 2

Lakhs Litters a day. i.e 18 % of the demand. Total Market share of milma is 51 % on an

average in both urban & rural areas. That takes total Demand jointly met by milma and

others to 35%. The remaining 65 % of the milk is not covered in this study.

Based on the above stated objectives this study has analyzed and

matched the level of satisfaction of the farmers and customers and thereby asses the

efficiency of milma in balancing their interests. Units of Analysis are the Member Dairy

Farmers. The satisfaction level of Customers is put to test in terms of the various

14 | P a g e


aspects of its customer’s functions namely Quality, Price Market Awareness., And Brand

Loyalty, and Product Access & Value Expectation.

Similarly the level of satisfaction of farmers is put in to test by

mean of their Acceptance of Management of Milma. Public Relations & Communication,

Acceptance of the Organization, Dairy Farming Dependency as Livelihood, Political

Involvement, Milk Production Enhancement Programme, Reliance On Milma For

Marketing Produces, Remunerative Price, Role Of Primary APCOS.

This research is done in an Exploratory Research Method as

there are no known or published earlier studies on the area of strategic intent of milma.

Being an exploratory research, much importance is given to primary sources for

collection of data. The data collection is done mainly by way of structured questionnaires

survey this study being an exploratory one in nature, relay basically on descriptive

statistics to measure the level of satisfaction or agreement of the respondent to a given

statement. Therefore an ordinal scaling technique is opted and specifically Likert’s Five

Point Scale is selected. The responses obtained are analyzed for their percentage of

Strong or mere agreement or disagreement or neutrality to a given statement. The % score

is corroborated with a mean Score value. Where ever required a test of association is

done using Chi Square Test.

The survey results shows that milma milk is enjoying s comfortable 70 %

market share in the urban area and 30 % in Rural. This amount to a total market share of

51 %. Quality of milma milk is found satisfactory. Milma need to improve a lot to fulfill

its stated objectives on customer functions. Milma has to take the leverage of its

competitive advantage of image of Govt Backed Co-operative label and a strong Brand

Loyalty.

Milma customers are quality conscious rather than price sensitive. 50

% of the users are favoring value addition and willing to pay a premium for value.

Therefore milma has to offer product differentiation by maintaining a balance between its

15 | P a g e


price and costs. On an emergent strategic perspective milma has to adopt a differentiation

strategy to earn better returns to help farmers with remunerative price for their produce.

On the other side, milma is a failure in terms of protecting the interest of the

farmers. Of the total available marketable surplus of milk production, milma could

procure only 45 % of the milk production of its member farmers. The major constrain

that prevent the farmers pour their entire marketable surplus to milma is the milk value

factor.

Farmers are following a mixed pouring strategy that helps them cover the

loss to some extent. A hypothetical case analysis shows that a farmer who pours his entire

marketable surplus to milma at the prevailing rate will end up in a loss of Rs. 6.75 per

liter. By diverting 25 % of the milk, he could bring down the loss to Rs. 3.18 per Litre.

If milma could pay an expected price of Rs35/- a liter, farmer could gain Rs.1.09. A

farmer who obtain the expected price of Rs 35/- per Liter, if continue a mixed pouring

strategy could gain up to Rs.3.31 per liter.

Majority of the farmers are highly dissatisfied on the Input assistance

provided by milma. The major area of their concern is availability of cattle feed and its

souring price. Out of the 12 Milk production Enhancement programmes (MPEP), tested

for satisfaction level, all except for Production Incentive Scheme, failed utterly.

Therefore its time milma think wisely to revamp its MPEP’s.

Another area of concern is the depletion of farming community. The

majority of the farmers are in their 50’s and above. With an average life expectancy of 60

Years in Kerala, this lot of farmers will be extinct within 10 years time. So its high time

milma has to have the wisdom and vision to equip itself either to help develop a new

generation of farmers, especially rural women or go for back ward integration.

16 | P a g e


This study concludes that its time milma has to do a strategic analysis

of its business level strategies and see possibilities to adopt an emergent strategic

approach. Strategy Management is a continuous process. Except for the core

vision or intent, strategies in the business level and operational level are to be

constantly reviewed to have a strategic fit and be aligned with the vision of the

organization.

Being a parallel to both capitalist and socialist form of economy, Co-

operatives are a viable solution to the evils of both. Therefore keeping in line

with the co-operative principles, milma can reformulate its business level and

operational level strategies to help farmers prosper while keeping the customer

lot satisfied with better customer functions and alternative technology.

17 | P a g e


Chapter 1

IX.00 Introduction

IX.01 Statement of the Problem

IX.02 Review Literature

IX.03 Objectives

IX.04 Research Design

1X.04.01 Type Of Research Design

1X.04.02 Date Collection from Secondary Sources

1X.04.03 Date Collection from Primary Sources

1X.04.04 Sampling Techniques

1X.04.05 Scaling Techniques

1X.04.06 Data Analysis Tools & Techniques

IX.05 Scope of the Study

IX.06 Limitations

IX.07 Chapterisation

18 | P a g e


1X.00 Introduction

“Living Is Purposeful Existence”. Purpose has to be value based.

Existence of a living entity becomes fruitful only when it succeeds in achieving the

purpose it strives for. Success can’t be an accident or a spontaneous happening. Only

deliberate action will make things happen to be successful. Acting is responding to

changes in the environment. Response has to be proactive rather than reactive. In

order to be proactive one has to communicate with the environment continuously.

Success gives growth. Growth means enhancement of capabilities in terms of

resources. Growth becomes meaningful when the enhanced capabilities help Create

and delivers value to the stake holders and to the environment as a whole. Therefore

the ultimate test of meaningful existence is the enhanced capability of an entity to

create and deliver value to its stake holders. This holds true for individuals as well as

organizations including business organizations.

The purpose that an organization or an individual strives for is called its

Strategic Intent. The strategic Intent of a firm can be expressed in a hierarchical way

at each of its organizational level. In the corporate level the strategic Intent could be

expressed as a whole in the form of Vision and Mission Statement of the

Organization. In the business level, i.e. in Strategic Business Unit Level, this could be

expressed as the Business Definition and Business Model.

Vision: - “A well conceived vision consists of two major components; Core

Ideology & Envisioned Future “(Collins & Porras 1996). The core ideology has to remain

consistent despite the changes in environmental vectors like technology, competition

or management fads. The core ideology has to rest on the core values and core

purpose of the organization. The envisioned future also has two components namely a

Long Term Audacious Goal and a vivid description of what it looks like when that

goal is achieved.

19 | P a g e


Mission: - When vision is a view of what an organization wish to be, mission is

what an organization is and why it exists. Mission is the tasks or steps undertaken to

achieve the vision. The mission of an organization answers three fundamental

philosophical business related questions; “what is our business?” , “What will it

be?” & “What it should be?”(Peter F Drucker). The mission of an organization is

therefore defined as “purpose or reason for organization’s existence” (Hunger & Wheelen

1999). The Mission Statement has to enlighten the insiders and outsiders about what the

organization stands for.

Business Definition: - In the business unit level the Strategic Intent of an

organization can be expressed in terms of the business definition. A business can be

defined in three dimensions namely Customer Group, Customer Functions and

Alternative Technology (Derek Abell). A clear business definition helps indicate the

choice of objectives, help choose the best strategic Alternatives, facilitate functional

policy implementation and suggest appropriate organizational Structure. Customer

Groups are the segments of customers which is one of the most important aspects of

defining the business. Customer Functions are the utility and value associated with the

products and services. Alternative Technology is the technology that helps creating

value bearing goods and services.

Business Model: - This is the representation of the core logic and strategic choices

of a firm that create and capture value within a value network. A business model is the

real life application of business strategies of an organization and they prescribe how to

implement the strategies and register growth in terms of money value.

This research study on the strategic Intent of milma is to analyze and

review the vision of “Farmers Prosperity through Customer Satisfaction” giving

special emphasis to the business definition of Thiruvananthapuram dairy, one of the

Strategic Business Unit (SBU) of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk

producers Union Limited (TRCMPU Ltd) This study measure the operational

efficiency of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy in providing remunerative price to farmers

by way of providing good quality milk to customers at competitive price.

“Milma”, as it is popularly known by the brand name itself, is a 3- tier

Dairy Industry organizational set up in Co-Operative Sector (Figure 01). This 3-tier

20 | P a g e


system consists of an Apex Body having three affiliated Regional Producers’ Unions,

comprised of primary level Anand Patten Co-Operative Societies having dairy

farmer-members.

Figure 1

As per clause 3.0 (3.1) of the bye law of TRCMPU Ltd, i.e at the corporate

level, the prime objective, shall be “to carry out activities conducive to the socio

economic development of the milk producers by effectively organizing production,

processing and marketing of commodities as per the direction of the Federation”.

The Kerala Sate Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd

(KCMMF Ltd), the apex body of producers’ union, set its fundamental prime

objectives as “to carry out activities for promoting production, procurement,

processing and marketing of milk and milk products for economic development of

the farming community”. Also it aim allied activities conducive for the promotion of

dairy industry, promotion and protection of milch animals and economic betterment of

those engaged in milk production without prejudicing the prime objective.

As per its stated motto, milma is committed to achieve “Farmers Prosperity

through Consumer Satisfaction”. Therefore the prime intent of Milma can be

21 | P a g e


concluded as is to strive for the socio- economic benefits of the dairy farmers in Kerala.

To this end milma must be able to support the farmers with effective Milk Production

Enhancement Programmes (MPEP’s) and should obtain better remunerative price for the

producers of its member – farmers. This is possible only if milma could add value to the

procured milk and provide good quality milk and milk products to potential customers at

competitive price.

It is in this context, this study is initiated and a problem area of the strategic

Intent of Milma is identified and attempts to find an answer to question, whether milma

could strike a balance between its twin objectives of providing remunerative price to

farmers by supply of competitively priced good quality milk & milk products to its

potential customers?

22 | P a g e


1X.01 Statement of the Problem

Milma is a Co-operative form of business organization.

Being a Co-operative form of entity, the shareholding Member Farmers are the major

beneficiaries and prime intent of milma as stipulated in its by- law is the socio-economic

uplift of this group. This legally stipulated corporate intent of milma could be achieved

only by of serving the customer group with value bearing customer functions.

The above objective of milma is very well stated in the business slogan

“Farmers Prosperity through Consumer Satisfaction”. This stated business slogan

imposes a dual responsibility on milma. On one end it is obliged to procure the produce

of farmers and provide remunerative price and on the other end is has to profitably

market quality milk and value added milk products to its customers at competitive price.

It is in this context, the specific problem of this study is identified.

The specific problem identified is the “Conflict Of

Interests Of Stake Holding Member Farmers And Customers And

The Ability Of Milma To Strike A Balance Between The Two” and the

back drop of identifying this problem is as stated below.

23 | P a g e


1X.02 Literature Review

This part of my report presents a summary of the literature search done on the

published data in relation to my research area of Strategic Management covering strategic

Intent of milma and the question of balancing the interests of stake holders and customers

in line with the stated intent of the organization.

Literature Review is nothing but an interpretation and synthesis of published

data. It has to be involved of locating, reading and evaluating published materials

including casual observations and opinions related to the research area.

As per a previous study, conducted by a team of dairy and livestock experts

headed by Dr. Unnithan, former Managing Director of Kerala Livestock Development

Board Ltd., the Dairy farmers in Kerala are the highest paid when comparing to the other

states in India. But even then the price level is not sufficient enough to set off the

mismatch between the production cost and the procurement price. But taking the

procurement price beyond that of the neighboring states is not in the best interests of the

producer or the consumer.

With regard to the market price of milk sold by milma, the report

states that the customers in Kerala are found paying no more than what their counter parts

in the neighboring states pay. The report categorically recommends that Milma, being is a

collective enterprise of resource-poor milk producers, should have all the rights to decide

the price of what they produce and survive in a free and competing market economy.

In contradiction to the above recommendation for freedom of pricing

policy, study further suggests that the government has to allow moderate incentives to

the dairy sector to function in a free-market economy, avoiding all forms of government

price control and monopoly.

24 | P a g e


The above previous study caution than increase in prices, which is

inevitable to sustain local production, needs to be carefully balanced with production

incentives from the government, as provided by many States and countries.

The same study report put forward a Procurement pricing policy linked to the

consumer price index (CPI) for a hassle-free and scientific price adjustment. Accordingly

the report suggests an Index-based pricing, based on four aspects:

a. Feeding Cost,

b. Wage Rates,

c. Bank Rate Of Interest

d. CPI

The measures mooted by the panel include subsidizing cattle feed,

supply of straw of paddy and wheat and promotion of fodder cultivation. The report says

the cost of milk production during summer is more than that in the rainy season, calling

for a differential pricing of milk and providing special packages and services for summer

management of dairy cattle. The committee suggests that promotion of medium-sized

dairy farms of 10 or more cows and empowering them to take up dairying as a profession

should find priority in the development plans of the government and Milma.

A comparison of the operating margins between the procurement and

the consumer prices shows that the margin received by Milma is one of the lowest of

those received by such agencies in the country.

25 | P a g e


1X.03 Objectives

1. Examine the operational efficiency of milma in providing

remunerative price to its member farmers for their milk

produces.


competitively priced good quality milk to potential customers.

26 | P a g e


1X.04 Research Design

This research study is titled Strategic Intent of Milma – with

Special Reference to Thiruvananthapuram Dairy.

` The subject area of this study is Strategic Management. The

problem area indentified is the Strategic Intent Of Milma in the Emergent Environment

with special reference to the Business Definition of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy, a

Strategic Business Unit (SBU) of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk

producers’ Union Ltd.

The specific problem identified is the “Conflict of Interests of Stake Holding

Member Farmers and Customers and the Ability of Milma to Strike a Balance between

the Two”. To this end this study aims to look in to a specific question of efficiency of

milma to strike a balance between the Customer Group and Stake Holding Member

Farmers.

Based on the above, this study has decided on two major objectives as

stated below.


remunerative price to its member farmers for their milk

produces.


competitively priced good quality milk to potential customers.

Unit of Analysis

Based on the above objectives this study is to analyze and match the level of

satisfaction of the farmers and customers and thereby asses the efficiency of milma in

balancing their interests. Therefore the Units of Analysis are the Member Dairy

Farmers and the Milma Customers

27 | P a g e


Variables

The study of level of satisfaction of farmers and customer is based on the

following variables which are identified relevant to the problem. These variables are

proposed to be studied by way of questionnaire survey based on Likert’s Scale method.

List of variables identified relevant to the problem are as shown in Table (1)

Table 1 Variables Brought Under Study

Research Variables Related To

Farmers

Research Variables Related To

Customers

1. Acceptance Of Management Of

Milma1. Quality Of Milk

2. Public Relations &

Communication2. Price Of Milk

3. Acceptance Of The Organization3. Market Awareness On Milma

Products

4. Dairy Farming Dependency As

Livelihood4. Brand Loyalty To Milma Products

5. Political Involvement 5. Product Access

6. Milk Production Enhancement

Programme6. Value Expectation

7. Reliance On Milma For

Marketing Produces

8. Remunerative Price

9. Role Of Primary APCOS

28 | P a g e


1X.04.01 Type Of Research Design

The topic of this research comes under Strategic Management and the

problem area identified is the Strategic Intent of Milma.

This research is done in an Exploratory Research Method as there

are no known or published earlier studies on the area of strategic intent of milma. Hence

no hypothesis or preposition is possible on the problem area. Therefore this study aims to

look in to patterns and ideas or prepositions rather than a hypothesis which can be tested

and proved true or false to be accepted or rejected.

Research Process

The research approach adopted in this study has the following stages

1. Decide on strategic management as research subject2. Identification of problem area of strategic intent on milma at corporate level3. Located a specific problem in businesses Definition of Thiruvananthapuram dairy4. Decided on exploratory research as no previous study could be traced5. Identified two specific objectives ;one related to farmers and other on customers6. Identified nine relevant variables in relation to farmers and six in relation to

customers7. Decided on Survey method for collection of data8. survey completed using questionnaire carrying questions related the identified

variables9. Data analysis and interpretation10. Preparation of report

Period of Study:

This study is conducted for period of 45 days starting from 15th

September 2012 to 31st t October 2012.

Mode of Study:

The study is conducted in person by field survey method and personnel

interviews. The Farmers and Customers are surveyed by way of printed structured

questionnaire which is prepared based on identified variables.

In addition to the stake holding member farmers and customers, the

Board of Directors, Managers and CEO’s of APCOS and dairy Officials etc are

interviewed personally in an unstructured manner.

29 | P a g e


1X.04.02 Date Collection From Secondary Sources:

This Study is done on exploratory research method as there is no

published and known document available on the specific problem of this study. Therefore

the secondary data collection is solely resorted only for gathering financial,

organizational and managerial data. The statistical data on the population of units of

analysis is also collected by way of secondary sources.

1. Annual Reports of KCMMF Ltd

2. Annual Report of TRCMPU Ltd

3. Audit Report

4. Bye Laws

5. Web Site

6. Company Brochures

7. Published Data

8. Statistical Data from Government Department

30 | P a g e


1X.04.03 Date Collection from Primary Sources

Being an exploratory research, much importance is given to primary sources

for collection of data. The data collection is done mainly by way of structured

questionnaires survey. The major sources resorted for primary data collection is as

follows.

Primary Sources for Data Collection By Way Of Structured Questionnaire:

1. Dairy Farmer Members of APCOS , namely Idchakkaplammoodu

KUCS, Kallyam KUCS & Vellanad KUCS

2. Customers Residing Within Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and

Neighboring Municipalities and Grama Panchayats.

Primary Sources for Data Collection By Way Of Unstructured Interview:

1. CEO’s / Secretaries of APCOS stated above

2. Members of Board of Directors of TRCMPU Ltd

3. CEO of TRCMPU Ltd

4. CEO of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy

5. Functional Managers of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy

6. Manager- P& I of TRCMPU Ltd

7. Government Officials of Dairy Development Department

8. Chairman & CEO of Farmers Welfare Board

31 | P a g e


1X.04.04 Sampling Techniques

A sample is made up of the members of a population. Population

refers to the body of people or to any other collection of items under consideration for the

purpose of the research. The individual member or item of a population under study is

called a Unit of Analysis. A sample is said to be a Good Sample when it satisfies the

following aspects.

Chosen At Random

Large Enough To Cover The Study

Unbiased.

Sampling Of Farmers.

In the selection of respondent farmers, a random sampling method is adopted

to avoid instances of being biased. The three Primary Milk Co-operative Societies are

selected in random to avoid being biased. Once the Primary societies are selected in

random, the members of such societies are covered in full to avoid being biased in

selecting only one section or group of members within that society. The size of the

population and sample is as follows.

Table 2

Dairy Farmer - Respondents (In Numbers)

1 Total Dairy Farmer Population in Kerala 8,06,599

Total Dairy Farmer Population in Thiruvananthapuram

District

(As Per Statistics For 2009-2010 Availed From Dairy Development Board)

66,935

3 Random Sample Size Taken 100

32 | P a g e


Sampling of Customers.

In the selection of respondent customers also random sampling method is

adopted since the population is very large and scattered. The customers are among

the general public so that respondent are selected randomly as and where available

in group. Such locations identified are mainly offices, factories and social and

religious gatherings. This study has resorted mainly offices and factories and family

and friends circles to locate customer respondents.

The size of the population and sample is as shown in the table (2) below

Table 3 -Sampling of Customers - Population Estimate

Customer - Respondents

(Source – National Population Senses -2011 )

Population Of Thiruvananthapuram District 3,307,284 Nos.

Rural Population 1,528,030 Nos.

Urban Population 1,779,254 Nos.

No Of Families In The District 7.85 Lakhs

Average Size Of A Family In The District 4.19 Nos.

Total No. Of Members In The Families 33.60 Lakhs

Estimated Daily Consumption Per Person 0.350 ml

Estimated Daily Consumption of a 4.19 member

Family1.470 ml

Estimated Output Of TVM Dairy A Day 2,00,000 litres

Estimated No. Of User Families (2,00,000/1.470) 136054 Nos.

Random Sample Size 117 Nos.

33 | P a g e


1X.04.05 Scaling Technique

This study being an exploratory one in nature, relay basically on descriptive

statistics to measure the level of satisfaction or agreement of the respondent to a given

statement. Therefore an ordinal scaling technique is opted and specifically Likert’s Five

Point Scale is selected. Ordinal scale observations are ranked in some measure of

magnitude. Numbers assigned to groups express a "greater than" relationship; however,

how much greater is not implied. The numbers only indicate the order. Examples of ordinal

scale measures include letter grades, rankings, and achievement (low, medium, high).

Other scaling methods available are as follows

Nominal scale: In the nominal scale, observations are assigned to categories based

on equivalence. Numbers associated with the categories serve only as labels. Examples of

nominal scale data include gender, eye color, and race.

Interval scales: - Interval scale data also use numbers to indicate order and reflect a

meaningful relative distance between points on the scale. Interval scales do not have an

absolute zero. An example of an interval scale is the IQ standardized test.

Ratio scale; - A ratio scale also uses numbers to indicate order and reflects a

meaningful relative distance between points on the scale. A ratio scale does have an

absolute zero. Examples of ratio measures include age and years of experience.

A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that

employs questionnaires. It is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey

research, such that the term is often used interchangeably with rating scale, or more

accurately the Likert-type scale, even though the two are not synonymous.

34 | P a g e


The scale is named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis Likert .Likert

distinguished between a scale proper, which emerges from collective responses to a set of

items (usually eight or more), and the format in which responses are scored along a range.

Technically speaking, a Likert scale refers only to the former.

The difference between these two concepts has to do with the distinction

Likert made between the underlying phenomenon being investigated and the means of

capturing variation those points to the underlying phenomenon. When responding to a

Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement on

a symmetric agrees-disagree scale for a series of statements. Thus, the range captures the

intensity of their feelings for a given item while the results of analysis of multiple items (if

the items are developed appropriately) reveals a pattern that has scaled properties of the

kind Likert identified.

In descriptive statistics the difficulty of measuring attitudes, character, and

personality traits lies in the procedure for transferring these qualities into a quantitative

measure for data analysis purposes. In response to this difficulty Likert (1932) developed a

procedure for measuring attitudinal scales. The original Likert scale used a series of

questions with five response alternatives:

Table 4 Likert’s Scale Illustration

Response StronglyApprove

Approve Undecided DisapproveStrongly

Disapprove

MeanScore

Individual orGroup

Sum ScoreX1 X2 X3 X4 X5

∑Xn

5 PointWeightage 5 4 3 2 1

(Where n= No.

of Responses )

Score X1 x 5 X2 x 4 X3 x 3 X4 x 2 X5 x 1

35 | P a g e


Responses from the series of questions are used to create an

attitudinal measurement scale. Data analysis is based on the composite score from the

series of questions that represented the attitudinal scale. A Likert scale is composed of a

series of multiple, generally four or more, Likert-type items that are combined into a single

composite score/variable during the data analysis process. Combined, the items are used to

provide a quantitative measure of a character or an attitude. An example of the Likert

scaling used in this study is shown in Table (3) above.

36 | P a g e


1X.04.06 Data Analysis Tools & techniques

1. Analyzing Likert Response Items

To properly analyze Likert data, one must understand the measurement scale

represented by each. Numbers assigned to Likert-type items express a "greater than"

relationship; however, how much greater is not implied. Because of these conditions,

Likert-type items fall into the ordinal measurement scale. Descriptive statistics

recommended for ordinal measurement scale items include a mode or median for central

tendency and frequencies for variability. Additional analysis procedures appropriate for

ordinal scale items include the chi-square measure of association, Kendall Tau B, and

Kendall Tau C.

Likert scale data, on the other hand, are analyzed at the interval measurement

scale. Likert scale items are created by calculating a composite score (sum or mean) from

four or more type Likert-type items; therefore, the composite score for Likert scales

should be analyzed at the interval measurement scale. Descriptive statistics recommended

for interval scale items include the mean for central tendency and standard deviations for

variability. Additional data analysis procedures appropriate for interval scale items would

include the Pearson's r, t-test, ANOVA, and regression procedures. Table 3 provides

examples of data analysis procedures for Likert-type and Likert scale data.

Table 5 Suggested Data Analysis Procedures for Likert-Type and Likert Scale Data

Suggested Data Analysis Procedures for Likert-Type and Likert Scale Data

Likert-Type Data Likert Scale Data

Central Tendency Median Or Mode Mean

Variability Frequencies Standard Deviation

Associations Kendall tau B or C Pearson's r

Other Statistics Chi-square ANOVA, t-test, Regression

Source :- Journal of Extension (JOE) www.joe.org Harry N. Boone, Jr. Deborah A. Boone West Virginia University, USA

37 | P a g e


2. Analysis of Stand Alone Individual Questions with Likert’s Response

Option:-

The data analysis decision for Likert items is made at the

questionnaire development stage itself. Where there are a series of individual questions

which can stand alone and that have Likert response options to be answered by the

respondents, then the data has to be taken as Likert’s Type items and Modes, medians,

and frequencies are the appropriate statistical tools to use.

3. Analysis of Combination Questions with Likert’s Response Option:-

Whereas if a series of Likert-type questions that when combined

describe an attitude, it is to be taken as a Likert scale and the sum data can be described

by using the means and standard deviations. If you feel a need to report the individual

items that make up the scale, only use Likert-type statistical procedures. Keep in mind

that once the decision between Likert-type and Likert scale has been made, the decision

on the appropriate statistics will fall into place.

An important distinction must be made between a Likert scale and a Likert

item. The Likert scale is the sum of responses on several Likert items. Because Likert

items are often accompanied by a visual analog scale (e.g., a horizontal line, on which a

subject indicates his or her response by circling or checking tick-marks), the items are

sometimes called scales themselves. This is the source of much confusion; it is better,

therefore, to reserve the term Likert scale to apply to the summed scale, and Likert item

to refer to an individual item.

Likert scaling is a bipolar scaling method, measuring either positive or

negative response to a statement. Sometimes an even-point scale is used, where the

middle option of "Neither agree nor disagree" is not available. This is sometimes called a

"forced choice" method, since the neutral option is removed. [7] The neutral option can

be seen as an easy option to take when a respondent is unsure, and so whether it is a true

38 | P a g e


neutral option is questionable. A 1987 study found negligible differences between the use

of "undecided" and "neutral" as the middle option in a 5-point Likert scale. [8]

Likert scales may be subject to distortion from several causes. And some of

the problems are as follows.

1. Respondents may avoid using extreme response categories (central

tendency bias);

2. agree with statements as presented (acquiescence bias);

3. Try to portray them in a more favorable light (social desirability

bias).

The above problems can be avoided by designing a scale with balanced

keying having an equal number of positive and negative statements .The positively

keyed items will balance acquiescence on negatively keyed items.

4. Scoring and analysis

After the questionnaire is completed, each item may be analyzed

separately or in some cases item responses may be summed to create a score for a group

of items. Hence, Likert scales are often called Summative Scales.

Whether individual Likert items can be considered as interval-level

data, or whether they should be treated as ordered-categorical data is the subject of

considerable disagreement in the literature. With strong convictions on what are the most

applicable methods. This disagreement can be traced back, in many respects, to the extent

to which Likert items are interpreted as being ordinal data.

There are two primary considerations in this discussion. First, Likert

scales are arbitrary. The value assigned to a Likert item has no objective numerical basis,

either in terms of measure theory or scale (from which a distance metric can be

39 | P a g e


determined). The value assigned to each Likert item is simply determined by the

researcher designing the survey, who makes the decision based on a desired level of

detail. However, by convention Likert items tend to be assigned progressive positive

integer values. Likert scales typically range from 2 to 10 – with 5 or 7 being the most

common. Further, this progressive structure of the scale is such that each successive

Likert item is treated as indicating a ‘better’ response than the preceding value. (This may

differ in cases where reverse ordering of the Likert Scale is needed).

The second, and possibly more important point, is whether the

‘distance’ between each successive Likert item is equivalent, which is inferred

traditionally. For example, in the above five-point Likert Scale, the inference is that the

‘distance’ between items 1 and 2 is the same as between items 3 and 4. In terms of good

research practice, an equidistant presentation by the researcher is important; otherwise it a

bias in the analysis may result. For example, a four-point Likert Scale–Poor, Average,

Good, Very Good–is unlikely to have all equidistant items since there is only one item

that can receive a below average rating. This would arguably bias any result in favor of a

positive outcome. On the other hand, even if a researcher presents what he or she believes

is an equidistant scale, it may not be interpreted as such by the respondent.

A good Likert scale, as above, will present symmetry of Likert items about a

middle category that have clearly defined linguistic qualifiers for each item. In such

symmetric scaling, equidistant attributes will typically be more clearly observed or, at

least, inferred. It is when a Likert scale is symmetric and equidistant that it will behave

more like an interval-level measurement. So while a Likert scale is indeed ordinal, if well

presented it may nevertheless approximate an interval-level measurement.

This can be beneficial since, if it was treated just as an ordinal scale, then

some valuable information could be lost if the ‘distance’ between Likert items were not

available for consideration. The important idea here is that the appropriate type of

analysis is dependent on how the Likert scale has been presented.

40 | P a g e


Given the Likert Scale's ordinal basis, summarizing the central

tendency of responses from a Likert scale by using either the median or the mode is best,

with ‘spread’ measured by quartiles or percentiles. Non-parametric tests should be

preferred for statistical inferences, such as chi-squared test, Mann–Whitney test, Wilcox

on signed-rank test, or Kruskal–Wallis test While some commentators consider that

parametric analysis is justified for a Likert scale using the Central Limit Theorem, this

should be reserved for when the Likert scale has suitable symmetry and equidistance so

an interval-level measurement can be approximated and reasonably inferred.

Responses to several Likert questions may be summed, providing that

all questions use the same Likert scale and that the scale is a defensible approximation to

an interval scale, in which case they may be treated as interval data measuring a latent

variable. If the summed responses fulfill these assumptions, parametric statistical tests

such as the Analysis Of Variance can be applied. These can be applied only when 4 to 8

Likert questions (preferably closer to 8) are summed.

Data from Likert scales are sometimes converted to binomial data by

combining all agree and disagree responses into two categories of "accept" and "reject".

The chi-squared, Cochran Q, or McNamara test is common statistical procedures used

after this transformation. Consensus Based Assessment (CBA) can be used to create

an objective standard for Likert scales in domains where no generally accepted or

objective standard exists. Consensus based assessment (CBA) can be used to refine or

even validate generally accepted standards.

41 | P a g e


Analysis Method Adopted: -

Based on the above discussion the Likert’s Scale Data is

analyzed using the following methods.

1. Percentage Analysis: -

Percentage is a statistic which summarizes the data by

describing the proportion or part in every 100. In this method the Percentage

Relative frequency is calculated using the following formula.

Percentage Relative Frequency = ∑2. Mean Score Analysis: -

This is a Measure of Central Tendency Using the Mean Score

of a frequency distribution. In this method a large frequency distribution can be

represented by a single value. The formula used for calculating the Mean Score

is as follows.

= ∑Where ̅ = Mean Score

X = Each Observation

∑X = Sum of each Observed Value

n = Total Number of Observations

3. Chi Square Test: -

Chi Square test is a Non Parametric Technique which is used

to assess the statistical significance of a finding by testing the contingency

(uncertainty of occurrence) or goodness of fit.

42 | P a g e


In this method frequency data from two situations is used to

match the differences. There will be a difference between the two sets of data.

The test involves two hypotheses namely Null Hypothesis and Alternate

Hypothesis denoted by H0 and H1 respectively. The null hypothesis will state

that the two variable are independent one another and the alternate hypothesis

state that they are associated.

The chi square test will find out whether there are any significant

differences between the actual (observed) frequencies and the hypothesized

(expected) frequencies. The idea is to test whether the difference is due to any

underlying universal differences or by merely to chance. The methodology of

Chi Square test is as follows.

a) Set up H0 and H1

b) Set table of observed frequencies (O) and total rows and columns

c) Calculate the Estimated frequency (E) using the formula ( Row total

x Column Total ) / Grand Total and set the value in table form

d) Find 2 using the formula ∑ ( ),

e) If O & E agrees, the Test Statistic 2 will have low value.

f) A high value of Test Statistic 2 denote poor agreement of O & E

g) Find out the 5% critical value , beyond which null hypothesis to be

rejected for accepting the alternate one, using the formula

v= (r-1) (c-1) where; v = Degree of Freedom

r= No. of Rows excluding totals

c= No. of columns excluding totals

43 | P a g e


1X.05 Scope of the Study

Scope tells what are inside and help to know what are outside. This study

being conducted as the part of MBA programme Curriculum, has limited scope as stated

below.

i. Conduct a 45 days Study on the Strategic Intent of Milma with

reference to its Thiruvananthapuram Dairy Plant.

ii. Examine the level of satisfaction of existing & potential milma

Customers coming under the operational area of

Thiruvananthapuram dairy

iii. Examine the level of satisfaction of APCOS Member farmers

coming under the operational area of Thiruvananthapuram dairy

on performance of milma in providing remunerative price,

production inputs.

iv. Critically evaluate the strategic Intent of milma using SWOT,

ETOP and SAP Techniques

44 | P a g e


1X.06 Limitations

1. This is study on strategic intent of milma as a whole is conducted with special

reference to Thiruvananthapuram Dairy only. Since organizational set up and

area of operation of milma is spread all over Kerala, this study has to be

restricted within Thiruvananthapuram District only.

2. Farmer respondents are selected based on cluster method and only three

different location could be fully covered for farmer survey

3. Farmers being a scattered lot could be contacted only when they come to the

collection centres for pouring milk. When contacted many of the farmers

were reluctant to express freely in the APCOS premises.

4. Directors of APCOS were not available for interviews and hence only the

CEO’s of the Societies are interviewed. Hence personal interviews with

Directors not attempted.

45 | P a g e


1X.07 Chapterisation

Chapter 1:

Introduction - Includes the General introduction to this study

and the Statement of the Problem, Review Literature, Objectives,

Research Design, and Scope of the Study & Limitations.

Chapter 2Industry Profile including briefs on Co-operatives and Dairy

Co-operatives in India

Chapter 3Company Profile – including Apex federation and member

Unions and their structure

Chapter 4 Data Analysis & Interpretation

Chapter 5 ETOP , OCP & SAP Analysis

Chapter 6 Findings Conclusions & Suggestions

46 | P a g e


Chapter 2.

VIII. Industry Profile

47 | P a g e


X. Industry Profile:-

The Dairy Industry Profile is analyzed in three levels namely;

1. Global Level

2. National level

3. State Level

1.0 Global Level:-

The Dairy Industry is one of the largest and most dynamic global

agricultural industries. Dairy farming is an agricultural activity that refers to the

production of milk from farm animals. The dairy industry encompasses businesses from

the farm gate through to food manufacturing. And dairy products include any food

product originally derived from animal milk.

1.1 Industry Segmentation:-

Raw fluid milk is the initial product produced in any dairy operation,

irrespective of size, structure or source. This milk is consumed ‘as is’, or can be then

processed into an increasing number of food products for human consumption. Such

processing usually either involves heating, drying or separating the raw milk. Processed

dairy products include:

At a global level, one third of total dairy milk production is consumed as fluid milk with

the remaining two thirds processed. Cheeses account for around half of dairy products,

followed by butters (nearly 30%) and the remainder consumed as powders (skim or

whole milk).

48 | P a g e


Figure: 2 Global Factory Milk Use by Product (2010)

1.2 Geographical Segmentation:-

The European Union is the largest dairy producing region, with annual

(cow) milk production in 2010 of 134 million tonnes, followed by the US (86million

tonnes), India (47.7million tonnes) and Russia (32.8million tonnes). India has the

largest dairy cattle herd with 38.5 million cows, followed by the EU-27 with

23.7million cows. Indian milk yields are notably inferior to the standards set in the

developed world. India is the world’s most significant consumer of ‘fluid’ milk with

annual consumption of 47.1million tonnes in 2010 vs the EU-27’s 33.7 million tonnes

and 27.9 million tonnes in the US. The majority of India’s milk production is consumed

as ‘fluid’ milk rather than processed in other products as is the case in other regions.

49 | P a g e


1.3 Industry Performance:-

The dairy industry, unlike many other agricultural industries, has had an

inconsistent growth profile. Global dairy cow numbers fell from a peak of 174 million

head in 1984 to 139 million head by the mid 1990’s. Cow milk production declined from

441 million tons in 1990 to 370 million tons by 1997, representing a total decline of 17%

over 7 years. Despite the growth at 1.7% pa over the past decade, current global level at

439.4 million tones is below the 1990 peak.

The growth in the dairy industry over the past decade has not been with without some

challenges: The grain price spike of 2007/08 pressured production margins and resulted

in a moderation in cow productivity (via reduced volumes of grain fed to animals). The

Global Financial Crisis resulted in further herd liquidation (3% contraction in the 2 years

from 2007 to 2009), which caused a 1% decline in total cow milk production over the

period

Figure3:-Global Cow Numbers & Productivity:-

1.4 Global Milk Production:-

Figure4:- Share of Cow Milk within Total Milk Production

50 | P a g e


2.0 National Level:-

India, the world's largest milk producer, accounts for around 20 per cent of

global milk production, with most of it consumed domestically. India ranks first in the

world in milk production, which went up from 17 million tons in 1950-51 to 121.84

million tons in 2010-11.

The per capita availability of milk has also increased from 112 grams per

day in 1968-69 to 281 grams in 2010-11. However, world average per capita availability

was 284 grams per day in 2009-10 compared to 273 grams per day for India. The Indian

dairy sector acquired substantial growth momentum from the Ninth Plan onwards,

achieving an annual output of 121.84 million tones of milk during 2010-11 (Table

8.10).

This represents sustained growth in the availability of milk and milk products for

the growing population of the country. Dairying has become an important secondary

source of income for millions of rural families and has assumed an important role in

providing employment and income-generating opportunities. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,

Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are the

leading milk producing states in the country

Tables-1 :-Milk Production & Per Capita Availability of Milk:-Last updated: Feb

29, 2012

YearProduction (Million

Tonnes)

Per Capita Availability

(gms/day)

1991-92 55.7 178

1992-93 58.0 182

1993-94 60.6 187

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure: 5- Per Capita Grams per Day Availability of Milk Vs. Milk Production ofin Million Tones

50 | P a g e












8.10).








29, 2012


Tonnes)


(gms/day)

1991-92 55.7 178

1992-93 58.0 182

1993-94 60.6 187


50 | P a g e












8.10).








29, 2012


Tonnes)


(gms/day)

1991-92 55.7 178

1992-93 58.0 182

1993-94 60.6 187


51 | P a g e


A study conducted by ASSOCHAM titled, “Indian Dairy Industry: The

Way Ahead” says;

Milk production is likely to climb to 190 million tons in 2015 from current

123 million tones.

60 % of milk is consumed in liquid form, and 40 % is used in the form of

butter, clarified butter (desi ghee), cheese, curd, paneer, ice cream, dairy

whiteners and traditional sweets.

Annual Growth rate is 10 % and Indian dairy industry is predominantly

controlled by the unorganized sector, which accounts for nearly 85 %

Eight crore rural families are engaged in dairy production and the rural

market consumes over half of the total milk produced.

The major causes behind the of lowering retail consumption of milk and

escalating milk prices in the domestic market are

a. Upward spiral in prices

b. Lack of proper chilling facilities and cold storage infrastructures

c. Absence of a transparent milk pricing system.

d. Lack of fodder resulting in low yield from cattle

Figure6:- Indian Dairy Industry: Raw Milk Consumption Vs Product Conversion

40%

51 | P a g e



Way Ahead” says;


123 million tones.















60%

40%Whole MilkConsumptionProductConversion

51 | P a g e



Way Ahead” says;


123 million tones.















Whole MilkConsumptionProductConversion

52 | P a g e


2..1 National Dairy Plan (NDP):-

Despite the initiated growth by White Revolution in 1970s, Indian dairy

industry marked a drop in milk production with annual production decreasing to 3.8

per cent in the 2000s from 4.3 per cent in the 1990s. India currently produces 120

million tons of milk per annum. But as per government estimates, by 2021-22, the

demand is expected to be for 180 million tons This implies that for the next ten years

from now, production would have to grow at 5.5 per cent year on year. To achieve this

India would have to primarily find ways of boosting the productivity of its milk

animals from a daily average of 3.4 Kg to 6. 0 Kg, which is the global standard.

. To meet the growing demand and accelerate dairy development in the

country, the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) is all set to launch a National

Dairy Plan (NDP) aimed at improving animal productivity, strengthen /expand

infrastructure for milk procurement at the village level and enhance milk processing

capacity. The World Bank funds will help the National Dairy Support Project

operationalize the first phase of the NDP’s work aimed at enhancing animal

productivity and improving the access of farmers to organized milk marketing channels.

The Project will cover some 40,000 villages across 14 major dairying states and is

expected to directly benefit around 1.7 million rural milk producing households. The

major focus of NDP will be to Increasing Milk Production by way of

Improved Genetic Quality Of Dairy Herd

Optimal Use of Feed and Fodder.

Support Long-Term Investments In Animal Breeding,

Extensive Training Of Dairy Farmers And

Doorstep Delivery of Artificial Insemination.

Promote Balanced Animal Feed And Nutrition

53 | P a g e


2..2 Dairy Co-operative Sector in India

Dairy Cooperatives account for the major share of processed liquid milk marketed in

the country. Milk is processed and marketed by 170 Milk Producers' Cooperative Unions,

which federate into 15 State Cooperative Milk Marketing Federations. The Dairy Board's

programmes and activities seek to strengthen the functioning of Dairy Cooperatives, as

producer-owned and controlled organizations. NDDB supports the development of dairy

cooperatives by providing them financial assistance and technical expertise, ensuring a better

future for India's farmers. Over the years, brands created by cooperatives have become

synonymous with quality and value. The Major Indian Brands those that have earned

domestic customer confidence are;

Amul Gujarat, Vijaya Andra Pradesh, Verka Punjab, Saras Rajasthan. Nandini Karnataka, Milma Kerala and Gokul Kolhapur ;

Some of the major Dairy Cooperative Federations include:

1. Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd (APDDCF)

2. Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (COMPFED)

3. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF)

4. Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. (HDDCF)

5. Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (HPSCMPF)

6. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (KMF)

7. Kerala State Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (KCMMF)

8. Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (MPCDF)9. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Maryadit Dugdh Mahasangh (Mahasangh)

10. Orissa State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (OMFED)

11. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (UP) (PCDF)

12. Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (MILKFED)

13. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd (RCDF)

14. Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd (TCMPF)

15. West Bengal Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd. (WBCMPF)

54 | P a g e


3.0 State Level:-

3.1 Milk Production

As per the statistics published by Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying &

Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, Kerala stands 13th in Milk production with 26,

45,000 Tonnes Per Annum.

Figure:7:- Estimates of Milk Production - State wise in 1000 MT - last updated: Feb 29, 2012

3.2 Production cost statistics in Kerala

The high cost of production ad low Milk production Yield have rendered

dairy production in the State uneconomic and non-remunerative owing to which several

farmers had left dairying.

Milk is a critical component of the daily diet and food chain and hence,

sustaining internal production is of strategic importance to the food security of the State. This

underscores the significance of identifying and developing such areas as priority milk sheds

through focussed dairy development programmes.The actual cost of production is far in

excess of the procurement price of Rs.18.63 for cow's milk with fat at 3.5 per cent and solid

not fat at 8.5 per cent fixed in the State.

Kerala – 26, 45,000 Tonnes

54 | P a g e


3.0 State Level:-

3.1 Milk Production
















54 | P a g e


3.0 State Level:-

3.1 Milk Production
















55 | P a g e


Nearly 48 per cent of the overall cost is on feed, 32 per cent on labour, 12 per

cent on maintenance of cows during the non-lactating period and the remaining eight per cent

on breeding and health cover, interest on investment in cows and loss in value of cows during

lactation. The average gross cost of production of milk across the two seasons — the flush

and lean seasons — and the statistics are as follows.

Table 6:- Statistics on– Production Cost, Yield, Cost Factor Ratio & Procurement Rate

Source: Dairy Expert Committee report by N.R. Unnithan appointed by KCMMF

Production Cost In RupeesRegion Flush Season Lean Season

Malabar Region 28.49 27.75Ernakulam Region 25.01 24.48Thiruvananthapuram 26.88 26.64State Average 26.75 26.27

Region Milk Yieldin Liters Per day

Malabar Region 7.39Ernakulam Region 9.20Thiruvananthapuram 9.46State Average

Production Cost factors Factor %Cost Of Feed 48%Labour Cost 32 %Rearing &Maintenance Non Lactating Period 12 %Breeding,

Health CoverInterest On Investment &Loss In Value Of Cows During Lactation.

08 %

Region Milk Procurement Pricein Rs.

State Average (3.5% Fat & 8.5 SNF) 18.63

56 | P a g e


Chapter 3.

XI. Company Profile

XI.01 Name, Location & Address

XI.02 History

XI.03 Strategic Intent

XI.04 Products

XI.05 Organizational Structure

57 | P a g e


XII. Company Profile

XI.01 Name, Location & Address:

“Thiruvananthapuram Dairy” (hereinafter referred to as “the Plant”) is a

division of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producer’s Union

Limited- TRCMPU Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the Union”) and is the first

Dairy plant in Kerala.

The plant is located in Ambalathara Village of Thiruvananthapuram

District, Kerala State and situated on Thiruvananthapuram - Kovalam road nearly

5 Kilometers away from Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station and 6 Km

from Thiruvananthapuram International Air Port.

The Registered Office Address of the plant is as follows.

General Manager,

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy,

Poonthura P.O., Ambalathara, Thiruvananthapuram.

Telephone: +91-471-2381410, 2382562, 2381228, 2384148, 2382982


The plant is located in a 13 acre plot area housing the Dairy Plant,

Administrative Building and Storage Facilities etc. Total of 270 personnel are

employed directly and 150 indirectly. The plant is having 3 Lakhs Litter milk

processing capacity and is the highest capacitated plant under the Union. The

procurement and marketing net work is spread out in the whole of

Thiruvananthapuram district teaming up with 148 Member Societies and 10 numbers

of own outlets and nearly 800 milk supply agents and 200 customer institutions.

Carrying vehicles including milk tankers covering and

58 | P a g e


XI.02 History

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy originally established in 1980

under the ownership of Kerala Sate Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd

(KCMMF Ltd), an apex body of Milk Producer’s Union in the state, was transferred to the

ownership of TRCMPU Ltd in 1985. The plant is one among the three dairy plants owned

by the Union. The other two dairy plants are located at Kollam and Pathanamthitta

Districts in Kerala.

Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd

(TRCMPU) was registered in 1985, as a Regional Milk Union having 4 Southern

Districts of Kerala viz, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Alappuzha and Pathanamthitta as

its area of operation. TRCMPU was formed by dividing the area of operation of Kerala

Milk Marketing Federation, formed for implementing Operation Flood II project in

1980, in to two regional Unions viz Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers'

Union Ltd (ERCMPU Ltd ) with 4 northern districts under OF II area, and TRCMPU.

59 | P a g e


XI.03 Management:

The Thiruvananthapuram Dairy being a division of TRCMPU Ltd. is being

governed by the Board of Directors of the TRCMPU with executive power vested with the

General Manager for Management of the day to day affairs of the Dairy plant.

The Board of Directors:

Vide Clause 19.1 of the Bye law, an elected board of Directors, of not more

than 18 members, is responsible for the governance of the Union and the structure of the

Board of directors will be as follows.

Table 7 : Structure of Board of Directors

# Member Type No.

1 General Constituency 14

2 Women Constituency 03

3 SC/ST Constituency 01

Total 18

60 | P a g e


XI.04 Strategic Intent

The strategic Intent or the objectives of the Union and that of the

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy being a division of the union, as stated in their Bye-Laws

under Clause 3.0 are as follows.

Tables:-5

3.0 Objectives

3.1 The objectives of the union shall be to carry out activities conducive to the socio economic

development of the milk producers by effectively organizing production, processing and

marketing of commodities as per the direction of the Federation.

Of the above, the prime objective “socio economic development of

the milk producers” and the extent of meeting the same through the procurement

strategy of milma is emphasized in this study and put to analysis to find the efforts by

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy to its fulfillment.

To this end, the strategic Intent along with the relevant sub clauses as per

bye law provisos are analyzed and matched with the production enhancement and input

programmes at The Thiruvananthapuram dairy Level and the corresponding

performance growth in Produced & Procured Milk Quantity, Value Addition efforts and

distribution of resultant benefits to the member milk producers.

61 | P a g e


XI.05 Products

Table 8 : Milma Product Mix: Marketed by Thiruvananthapuram dairy

Product Name Product Description Packing Unit Price

1 Mila Smart Milk 1.5 % fat & 9.0% SNF 500 gm 13.502 Toned Milk-Homogenized Milk 3.0 % Fat & 8.5% SNF 500 gm 15.003 Milma Jersey Milk 3.5 % Fat & 8.5 % SNF 500gm 15.004 Milma Rich Plus Milk 3.8 % Fat & 9.0% SNF 500gm 16.005 Ghee Golden Color Ghee 50 ml 21.506 Ghee Golden Color Ghee 100ml 40.007 Ghee Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar 200ml 76.008 Ghee Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar 500ml 175.009 Ghee Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar 1 Ltr 330.00

10 Ghee Golden Color Ghee 2 Ltr 645.0011 Ghee Golden Color Ghee 5ltr 1600.0012 Butter Natural Golden Salted/Unsalted 100 gm 30.0013 Butter Natural Golden Salted/Unsalted 500 gm 145.0014 Cassata Milcream 120 ml 20.0015 Chocó bar Milcream 60 ml 12.0016 Delite Milcream 120 ml 25.0017 Kulfi Milcream 60 ml 18.0018 Chocolate Milcream 100 ml 22.0019 Curd Cultured 500 gm 17.0020 Sambaram Traditional 200 ml 5.0021 Peda Milk Based Sweet 15 gm 5.0022 Peda Milk Based Sweet 150 gm 50.0023 Paneer Coagulated Milk 100gm 26.0024 Paneer Coagulated Milk 1 Kg 230.0025 Dairy Whitener Skimmed Milk Powder 200 gm 150.0026 Dairy Whitener Skimmed Milk Powder 500 gm 62.0027 Milk Lolly Pasteurized Milk & added Sugar Per Piece 3.0028 Milk Beats Chocolate Per Piece 10.0029 Chocó Beats Chocolate Per Piece 10.0030 Milma Krispy Chocolate Per Piece 5.0031 Milky Thunder Chocolate Per Piece 5.0032 Chocó Chat Chocolate Per Piece 2.0033 Milma Mango UHT Tech Drink 200ml 12.0034 Milma Mango UHT Tech Drink 500ml 28.0035 Milma Mango UHT Tech Drink 1 Ltr 48.0036 Milma Plus Sterilized Flavoured Milk 200ml 20.0037 Ice candy Water Based Lolly Per Piece 2.0038 Yoghurt Milk - Fermented with Lactobacillus Bacteria 100 ml 15.0039 Shrikand Lactic Fermented Curd Per Pack 16.0040 Drinking Water Filtered Potable Water 1 Ltr 12.0041 Palada Mix Traditional Payasam Mix 200gm 50.00

Source: Marketing Cell, Thiruvananthapuram Dairy

62 | P a g e



Thiruvananthapuram Dairy being the dairy plant fully owned by TRCMPU

Ltd is under the control of the Board of Directors of the Union. The Kerala State Co-

operative Milk marketing Federation being the Apex Body for Dairy Co-operative Unions in

Kerala , having all registered milk unions in the state as its members has a self assigned

role to advise ,guide and control the Milk Unions in all aspects of management ,supervisions

and audit functions as stipulated under clause 3.2.7 of its bye laws is exercising supervisory

powers on the Union.

The administration of the Dairy plant is entrusted with the General Manager

of the plant and has the hierarchical span of control as Shown in Figure-11

Figure-8:- Organizational Structure of Tvm Dairy

62 | P a g e













62 | P a g e













63 | P a g e


XI.06.1 Functional Departments

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy Plant is having the following 9 functional departments

under the unity of command of General Manager.

1) Office of the General Manager

2) Finance & Accounts Department

3) Human Resource Department

4) Procurement & Inputs Department

5) Production Department

6) Products Department

7) Quality Control Department

8) Marketing Department

9) Purchase & Stores Department

10) Maintenance Department

The span of control and their functional roles in discharging the internal

management and roles and responsibilities in the day to day activities are discussed below.

64 | P a g e


1. Office of the General Manager

Staff Pattern

2. Finance & Accounts Department

Staff Pattern:-

Functions

Finance is the life blood of a business and management of Finance and

Accounts has its prominence in every organization. The Finance and Accounting

function of a business organization is included of the following activities

Financial Planning & Controlling

Sourcing of Funds

Working Capital Management

Accounts Manager

Accounts Officer

Asst. Accounts Officer

Senior / JuniorSuperintendent

Senior/juniorAssistants

65 | P a g e


Book Keeping & Accounting

Audit & Inspection

3. Human Resource Department

Staff Pattern:-

In a modern Total Quality environment, Personnel are considered as Core

Assets of the firm and enhancement of individual and group capabilities is considered to be

the key area of concern of HRM – Human Resource Management. The Functions of an

HR Department in this regard can have two aspects.

Personnel Management: It deals with Recruitment, Selection, Placements,

Remuneration, Transfer and Termination.

Human Resource Development: HRD has a humane side and it is more concerned

with the well being of employees.

An ideal HRM system must have an approach proactive to the wants and needs of

workers. Such an approach will help create mutual trust, confidence, motivation and

good interpersonal and industrial relations. The goal redefined for HRM is to retain a

contended, highly motivated work force that help the organization retain customers and

thus help earn profit. The HRM function in Thiruvananthapuram dairy is largely

Personnel oriented and HRD activates are being organized in the Union level.

66 | P a g e


4. Procurement & Inputs Department

Staff Pattern

Importance of P& I Department:-

The Procurement & Inputs (P&I) Department is assigned of helping the member

farmers in achieving high yield milk production through Milk Production Enhancement

Programmes at farm level and optimal procurement of milk from farmers’ societies.

Milk Production Enhancement Programmes :- The major Milk Production

Enhancement Initiatives are;

1. Artificial Insemination

2. Feed and Fodder Programme

3. Total Mixed Ration Programme

4. Heifer Development Programme

5. Farm Support Programme

6. Decentralized Veterinary Units

7. Procurement of Milk by Societies / Union

8. Insurance Schemes

9. Women Cattle Care Programme

10. Co-operative Development / Institution Building Programme

11. Awards and scholarships

67 | P a g e


5. Production & Products Department

Staff Pattern

The Milk Processing Cycle:-

Figure9-Process Flow for Packed Milk for Retailing

Milk Products:-

1. Curd:

2. Sambaram:

3. Ghee-

Figure: 10-Production process of sambaram-flow chart

Figure11-Production process of ghee- flow chart

Start Receiving the cream Testing of cream (FAT %) Heating (120 0c)

Pumping ghee to setting tankClarification of ghee to cansLabeling of cans

Seeding of cans Shifting of cans to ghee store End

68 | P a g e


6. Quality Control Department

Quality policy:-

The quality policy as stated by the organization is as follows.

QUALITY POLICY

TRCMPU in Thiruvananthapuram Dairy are committed

to comply with requirements and continually improve effectiveness

of the Quality Management system and to enhance the satisfaction

of customers and milk producers by providing consistent quality

products and services through implementation of Quality

Management System.

Functions of Quality Control Departments

The main function of quality control department is the inspection of

incoming milk of each society and outgoing products. Inspection is mainly conducted

in order to make sure that the production is carried out as per their standards.

1. Quality Standards Of Out Going Milk

Table 9: - Milk Quality

Products FAT% SNF%

Toned Milk 3.00 8.50

Homogenized Milk 3.00 8.50

Milma Rich 4.50 9.00

69 | P a g e


7. Marketing Department :-

1. Functions of Marketing Department

Marketing is one of the three key functional areas of TRCMPU Ltd. and it is

the only functional area responsible for generating income for the Union. Marketing

comprises of the following two broad areas.

1. Marketing of Fresh Products.

Marketing of Fresh Products like packed whole milk an Curd, is a major

responsibility being carried out by the marketing. The Marketing activities in the dairy

can be broadly classified into

(1) Distribution Management and

(2) Market Development Activities.

2. Marketing of Long Life products.

.

Market Development And Supply Management

Study New Markets

Identifying Marketing Problem And Measures To Solve The Problem

Finding New Customers

Canvas For Bulk Orders

Increasing Sale And Networking

Marketing Personnel:-

The Marketing Officers are to lead the field operations and assisted by

Assistant Marketing Officers and Market Organizers. Assistant Marketing Officer

concerned with activities regarding supply management. That means the distribution

of milk and milk products giving details to the production departments about how

much to produced to next day. He is also responsible about the marketing accounting

and market development activities. The whole operation of marketing in the plant

level and it’s planning and control is the responsibility of Manager – Marketing.

70 | P a g e


Milma Products:-Table 10 Milma Products:-

Product Packing Product Description

1 Mila Smart 500 gm Milk 1.5 % fat & 9.0% SNF

2 Milk-Homogenized 500 gm Milk 3.0 % Fat & 8.5% SNF

3 Milma Jersey 500gm Milk 3.5 % Fat & 8.5 % SNF

4 Milma Rich Plus 500gm Milk 3.8 % Fat & 9.0% SNF

5 Ghee 50 ml Golden Color Ghee

6 Ghee 100ml Golden Color Ghee

7 Ghee 200ml Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar

8 Ghee 500ml Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar

9 Ghee 1 Ltr Golden Color Ghee –Pet Jar

10 Ghee 2 Ltr Golden Color Ghee

11 Ghee 5ltr Golden Color Ghee

12 Butter 100 gm Natural Golden Salted/Unsalted

13 Butter 500 gm Natural Golden Salted/Unsalted

14 Cassata 120 ml Milcream

15 Chocó bar 60 ml Milcream

16 Delite 120 ml Milcream

17 Kulfi 60 ml Milcream

18 Chocolate 100 ml Milcream

19 Curd 500 gm Cultured

20 Sambaram 200 ml Traditional

21 Peda 15 gm Milk Based Sweet

22 Peda 150 gm Milk Based Sweet

23 Paneer 100gm Coagulated Milk

24 Paneer 1 Kg Coagulated Milk

25 Dairy Whitener 200 gm Skimmed Milk Powder

26 Dairy Whitener 500 gm Skimmed Milk Powder

27 Milk Lolly Per Piece Pasteurized Milk & added Sugar

28 Milk Beats Per Piece Chocolate

29 Chocó Beats Per Piece Chocolate

30 Milma Krispy Per Piece Chocolate

31 Milky Thunder Per Piece Chocolate

32 Chocó Chat Per Piece Chocolate

33 Milma Mango 200ml UHT Tech Drink

34 Milma Mango 500ml UHT Tech Drink

35 Milma Mango 1 Ltr UHT Tech Drink

36 Milma Plus 200ml Sterilized Flavoured Milk

37 Ice candy Per Piece Water Based Lolly

38 Yoghurt 100 ml Milk - Fermented with Lactobacillus Bacteria

39 Shrikand Per Pack Lactic Fermented Curd

40 Drinking Water 1 Ltr Filtered Potable Water

41 Palada Mix 200gm Traditional Payasam Mix

42 Cattle Feed 100kg Bag Mash & Pellet form of cattle feed

71 | P a g e


8. Maintenance Department:-Figure: 12-Organizational Structure of Maintenance Department:-

2. Functions:-

Major Functions of Maintenance Department

1) Maintenance of Plant Equipments and Machineries

2) Conduct Periodic Efficiency test for Equipments

3) Management of Effluent Treatment Plant

4) Ensure Continuous Power Supply to Dairy Plant

5) Timely repair works of Plant, Equipment and Machineries

6) Maintenance of Buildings

7) Monitor Consumption of Furnace Oil & Lubricants

8) Over all in charge of Vehicles Including Personnel

9) Render Technical advice to Other departments

ManagerMaintenance

Assistantmanager

Maintenance

DeputyEngineer

Technicalsuperintendent

Plant Technician

72 | P a g e


9. Purchase & Stores Department

Figure: 13 Organizational Structure of Stores Department

The major function of Store Manager is to make available the required

materials as per the 5R’S i.e.

6.03.a.01 Right Price

6.03.a.02 Right Quality

6.03.a.03 Right Quantity

6.03.a.04 Right Time

6.03.a.05 Right Source

A systematic and proper control of store keeping functioning are essential for

ensuring discipline ,availability of articles at required time adequate storage in store

keeping records.

Major functions of stores department are;

Receiving of material and recording of receipts.

Arranging inspection and proper storage and preservation of receipts.

Issue of storage items to user departments

Preparation of various report

73 | P a g e


Chapter 4.

XII Data Analysis & Interpretation –

Objective Wise

XII.01 Part–1. Data Analysis & Interpretation – Customers’

XII.02 Part–2. Data Analysis & Interpretation – Farmers’

74 | P a g e


XII. Data Analysis & Interpretation – Objective Wise

In commensurate with the twin objectives of this study relevant data are

collected from dairy farmers and customers separately. The collected data in respect

of farmers and customers are analyzed and interpreted individually for finding their

satisfaction level Using Likert’s 5 Point Scale Analysis.

This report contains the analysis and interpretation in to two distinct parts,

namely Part –I & Part-II.

Part -I contains the analysis and interpretation of data collected in relation

to customers and Part -II is covered with the analysis and its interpretation of data

collected in relation to Farmers.

75 | P a g e


Part -1

Data Analysis &

Interpretation

In Relation To Customers

76 | P a g e


1. Characteristics Of Respondent - Customers Samples :-

1.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondent Customers:Table 11 Customer - Population Data Source – National Population Senses -2011

Customer - Respondents

(Source – National Population Senses -2011 )

Population Of Thiruvananthapuram District 33,07,284 Nos.Rural Population 15,28,030 Nos.Urban Population 17,79,254 Nos.No Of Families In The District 7.85 LakhsAverage Size Of A Family In The District 4.19 Nos.

Majority i.e 73 % of the respondent customers is of 35

years and above. The concentrated occupation of 78 % respondents is employed group.

The average family size of Respondent- customer group is 4.20 members per family and

the 45.30 % of the families are 4 member families. The combination of gown up and

children in an average family is 71 % and 29 %.

Table 12

Table 13

Respodents' Age Group

Bloew 25 5 4.27%25 To 35 27 23.08%35 To 45 43 36.75%45 To 60 34 29.06%60 Above 8 6.84%

Total 117 100.00%

Respondents' Occupations

Agriculturists 1 0.85%Home Makers 19 16.24%Enployees 91 77.78%Business Persons 4 3.42%Students 2 1.71%

Total 117 100.00%

77 | P a g e


Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Of the total respondent, 50 % of respondents are from

urban and 50 % are from rural locations. Of the total respondents 55% are males and 45%

are females. Rural respondents are comprised of 62 % Males and 38% females. Urban lot

is of 47%Males & 53% Females. Among urban respondents 69 % are Milma Users and

Non Users are 31%. In Rural, there are 52% Users and 48% Non users. All together there

are 61% milma users and 39% other than milma users.

Respodents Age Segment

35 Below 29 24.79%35 & Above 88 75.21%

Total 117 100.00%

Respodent- Customers Family Size

One Member 1 0.85%Two Member 8 6.84%Three Member 20 17.09%

Four Member 53 45.30%

Five Member 20 17.09%Five Member Above 15 12.82%

Total Familes 117 100.00%

End User Age Segment Spread

Grown Ups 349 71.08%Children 142 28.92%

Total 491 100.00%

Customer Average Family Size

Total Number of Members 491Total Number of Families 117Average Family Member Size (491/117) 4.20

End User Age Segment Spread

Grown Ups 349 71.08%Children 142 28.92%

Total 491 100.00%

Customer Average Family Size

Total Number of Members 491Total Number of Families 117Average Family Member Size (491/117) 4.20

78 | P a g e


Table 18: Geographical Gender Spread of Respondent -Customers

Geographical Gender Spread of Respondent -Customers

Urban Vs. Rural

Urban 59 50.43%

Rural 58 49.57%

Total 117 100.00%

Rural Male Vs Female

Rural Male 36 62.07%

Rural Female 22 37.93%

Total 58 100.00%

Urban Male Vs Female

Urban Male 28 47.46%

Urban Female 31 52.54%

Total 59 100.00%

Urban Users Vs Non Users

Urban Users 41 69.49%

Urban Non Users 18 30.51%

Total 59 100.00%

Rural Users Vs Non Users

Rural Users 30 51.72%

Rural Non Users 28 48.28%

Total 58 100.00%

1.2 Milk Consumption Rate:-

Hose hold consumption of milk per person is 332 ml a day. Consumption

per person in Rural areas is 352 ml and in urban areas 314ml.

Figure 14

0.280.3

0.320.340.36

Urban Rural Average

Per Person Milk Consumption In LtrsSeries1 0.352 0.314 0.332

Cons

umpt

ion I

n Lite

rs

Milk Consumption Rate

79 | P a g e


Tea/CoffieMaking

57%

Food Drink29%

Others14%

Milk Usage Pattern

1.3 Milk Usage:-

Of total house hold milk consumption, 57 % of is used for Tea

(Coffee) making and only 29 % is taken as a food drink. 14 % of milk is used for

other purposes including Curd preparation, medicinal purpose and cooking dishes such

as Payasam etc.

2..1 Market Players & Market Share - Analysis

Market Share of Milma Milk In Terms Of Use:

The market share of milma milk 50.31 %. Of the total Milma Milk, 56%

of milk is consumed for tea making and only 27.50 % is taken as a Food Drink. 13.50 %

of milma milk is being consumed for other purposes.

Milk UsageUse Qty Ltrs %Tea/Coffie Making 93.100 57.12%Food Drink 47.750 29.29%

Others 22.150 13.59%Total 163.000 100.00%

Milk Usage - Milk Type WiseProduction Function

Milk Usage Location Wise Cover Milk Pure Milk% %

Tea Making Urban Users 69.72% 30.28%

Rural Users 46.54% 53.46%

All users 57.68% 42.32%

Food Drink Urban Users 61.24% 38.76%

Rural Users 21.64% 78.36%

All users 43.04% 56.96%

Other Uses Urban Users 92.37% 7.63%Rural Users 64.43% 35.57%

All users 80.14% 19.86%

Product Type Wise Consumption RateCustomer Group

Table 19

Table 20 Figure 15

80 | P a g e


Figure 16

Table 21

Table 22

2..2 Market Share Of Milk-In Terms of Meeting Demand :-

Of the total household demand of milk in Thiruvananthapuram district,

50.31 % of the demand is met by milma. Among the balance of players only the Local

Farmers enjoys a double figure (17.18 %) market share. The rest of the players all

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

%Tea Making 55.73%Food Drink 27.50%OtherUse 16.77%

Perc

enta

ge

Milma Milk Usage

Milk Consumption Pattern - Source WiseMilk Sources

Qty % Qty % Qty % Qty %

Milma 45.700 55.73% 22.550 27.50% 13.750 16.77% 82.00 50.31Local Farmers 18.350 65.54% 7.000 25.00% 2.650 9.46% 28.00 17.18

Govt Farms 3.500 70.00% 1.500 30.00% - 0.00% 5.00 3.07

Pvt Farms 6.500 61.90% 4.000 2.45% - 0.00% 10.50 6.44

Cycle Vendors 1.800 40.00% 2.450 54.44% 0.250 5.56% 4.50 2.76

Self Farming 3.750 50.00% 2.250 30.00% 1.500 20.00% 7.50 4.60

Other Dairies 5.000 83.33% 0.000 0.00% 1.000 16.67% 6.00 3.68

Mixed Sources 8.500 43.59% 8.000 41.03% 3.000 15.38% 19.50 11.96

Total 93.100 57.12% 47.750 29.29% 22.150 13.59% 163.00 100.00

TotalTea Making Food Drink Other Use

Milk Usage & Sources - Milma Vs. Others

Mik Usage

Qty % Qty % Qty %

Tea Making 93.100 57.12% 45.700 55.73% 47.400 58.52%

Food Drink 47.750 29.29% 22.550 27.50% 25.200 31.11%

OtherUse 22.150 13.59% 13.750 16.77% 8.400 10.37%

All Use 163.000 100.00% 82.000 50.31% 81.000 49.69%

All Milma OthersSources

81 | P a g e


together constitute 19.56 % and the remaining 11.96 % of the market share is an

inconsistent segment randomly shared by all players.

In this Mixed Sector of 11.96 %, consumers show an inconsistent buying

behaviour, especially in the rural areas where customers randomly changes the source of

milk. Of the 50% of the market enjoyed by milma milk, 70 % of the milma milk is

consumed in urban areas whereas only 30 % of the market is in rural areas.

Table 23

2..3 Market Share of Milma Milk Vs. Others – Urban Mix :-

Milma enjoys a clear upper hand in the Urban Market with 70 % of

the milk share. Next to milma, in tune with the overall trend in the district, only Local

Farmers singly enjoys a double figure of 15.66 %. The rest of the 4 players comprising

Government Farms, Cycle Vendors, Private Farms And Dairies Other Than Milma are all

Source Wise - Geographical Spread of Milk Market ShareMilk Sources Market Share Total Consumption

Urban % Rural % Qty %

Milma 58.000 69.88% 24.000 30.00% 82.000 50.31%Local Farmers 13.000 15.66% 15.000 18.75% 28.000 17.18%

Govt Farms 4.000 4.82% 1.000 1.25% 5.000 3.07%

Pvt Farms 1.000 1.20% 9.500 11.88% 10.500 6.44%

Cycle Vendors 1.500 1.81% 3.000 3.75% 4.500 2.76%

Self Farming 2.000 2.41% 5.500 6.88% 7.500 4.60%

Other Dairies - 0.00% 6.000 7.50% 6.000 3.68%

Mixed Sources 3.500 4.22% 16.000 20.00% 19.500 11.96%

Total 83.000 100.00% 80.000 100.00% 163.000 100%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Milma LocalFarmers

Pvt Farms SelfFarming

OtherDairies

GovtFarms

CycleVendors

MixedSources

50.31% 17.18% 6.44% 4.60% 3.68% 3.07% 2.76% 11.96%

Mar

ket S

hare

%

Market Share of Milma Vs. Others

Figure 17

82 | P a g e


together enjoys 7.83 % of the market stake as shown below. Even in the urban area a small

sector of 2.41 % is still resorting to own milch animal rearing for meeting their milk

requirement. In a Mixed Segment, 4.22 % of the demand of milk is met in an inconsistent

manner, where consumers show no specific pattern in sourcing milk.

Table 24

Figure 18

2..4 Market Share of Milma Milk Vs. Others – Rural Mix :-

In the rural market, milma is in a low profile, though it is the single largest

player in the market meeting 30% of the demand. Local Farmers and Private Dairy Farms are the

next 2 digit market players with 18.75 % and 11.88 % respectively. Dairies Other Than Milma,

Market Player

PMilma 69.88%

P Local Farmers 15.66%

Govt Farms 4.82%

Cycle Vendors 1.81%

Private Dairy Farms 1.20%

Dairies Other than Milma 0.00%

P Small Players 7.83%

P Self Farming 2.41%

P Mixed Sources 4.22%

Urban Share

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%

Milma LocalFarmers

GovtFarms

SelfFarming

CycleVendors

Pvt Farms OtherDairies

MixedSources

Series2 69.88% 15.66% 4.82% 2.41% 1.81% 1.20% 0.00% 4.22%

Mar

ket S

hare

in %

Urban Market share Distribution

83 | P a g e


Cycle Vendors and Govt. Farms altogether constitute a 12.50 % share and animals owned by

consumers meet 6.88% of the demand.

20 % of the rural market is still remaining open to the players, where the

customers shown no consistency in resorting to a single player.

Table 25

Figure 19

Market Player Rural Share

PMilma 30.00%

P Local Farmers 18.75%

P Private Dairy Farms 11.88%

Dairies Other than Milma 7.50%

Cycle Vendors 3.75%

Govt Farms 1.25%

P Small Players 19.38%

P Self Farming 6.88%

P Mixed Sources 20.00%

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.3

Milma LocalFarmers

Pvt Farms OtherDairies

SelfFarming

CycleVendors

GovtFarms

MixedSources

Series3

Series4 30.00% 18.75% 11.88% 7.50% 6.88% 3.75% 1.25% 20.00%

Mar

ket S

hare

%

Rural Market Share Distribution

84 | P a g e


2..5 Urban Rural Mix In A Glance;-

Urban Market

Figure 20

Rural Market

Figure 21

69.88%

15.66%

4.82%

2.41%

1.81%

1.20%

0.00%

4.22%

Milma

Local Farmers

Govt Farms

Self Farming

Cycle Vendors

Pvt Farms

Other Dairies

Mixed Sources

Series2

30.00%

18.75%

11.88%

7.50%

6.88%

3.75%

1.25%

20.00%

Milma

Local Farmers

Pvt Farms

Other Dairies

Self Farming

Cycle Vendors

Govt Farms

Mixed Sources

Series4 Series3

85 | P a g e


Table 26

2. Data Analysis & Interpretation - Variable Wise

The variables identified as relevant to assess the level of agreement

on the efficiency of milma in providing remunerative price to farmers and quality milk

at competitive price to customers are converted in to simple questions for being

responded in Likert’s 5 Point scale model. The survey questions are grouped under

each variable and the customer agreement level on each variable is obtained on a 5

points scale and the percentage analysis is done. The result obtained is further

corroborated by subjecting the data to Likert’s 5 Point Scale analysis to locate the mean

score of the responses.

The Variables Put In to analysis is as follows.

3.1 Quality

3.2 Price

3.3 Brand Loyalty

3.4 Market Access

3.5 Market Awareness

3.6 Value expectation

Source Wise- Market Share in meeting the deamnd for Milk

Milma 69.88% 30.00% 50.31%Local Farmers 15.66% 18.75% 17.18%Govt Farms 4.82% 1.25% 3.07%Pvt Farms 1.20% 11.88% 6.44%Cycle Vendors 1.81% 3.75% 2.76%Self Farming 2.41% 6.88% 4.60%Other Dairies 0.00% 7.50% 3.68%Mixed Sources 4.22% 20.00% 11.96%Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Milk SourcesUrban Rural Total

Contribution %

86 | P a g e


3.1 Quality of Milma Milk :-

The quality of milma milk has put in to test before the customers in terms

of the following quality aspects

Superiority of Brand

Sachet Milk whether Healthy & Safe

Pure Milk Equivalency

Instances Of Spoilage & Attribute of Reconstituted Milk

All Reponses to the Likert’s scale Questions are grouped on the

basis of above factors and summed to find out the summed Score. Based on the

Tabulated Likert Scale Points the percentage score and Mean Score for each quality

factor is arrived is shown in the table ().

Table 27

The analysis indicates a favorable 3.5 above score for both the

“Superiority of Brand” (3.79) & “Health and safety” (3.60). But “Equivalency

with Pure Milk” is in a gray area with a middle level score of 3.08. The score on

“Instances of Spoilage & Attribute of Reconstituted Milk” together made a score

of 3.33 which caused an eclipse effect on the high score earned on account of Brand

Quality and Health and Safety Aspect.

87 | P a g e


One of the major attribute that made overall quality fall below 3.50

is the customer perception of Non Equivalency of Milma Milk to Pure Milk, which

has a lowest score of 3.08.

Figure 22

3

1. Sum Score on Quality:-

The sum score on the test variable Quality of Milma Milk is arrived at

3.30 as shown in the Figure – 4

Table 258

While 13.25 % of the respondents strongly agreed to the quality of

milma milk 34.70 % registered mere satisfaction. Only 4.36% strongly disagreed to

the quality of milma milk, a 22.82 % of the respondents disagreed only in a lesser

level. ¼th of the respondents i.e. 24.87% took a neutral position. The First two

-0.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

∑X / nSuperiority Over Other Brands 3.79Healthy & Safe 3.60Spoilage &Reconsitued Milk 3.33Equvalecy to Pure Fresh Milk 3.08

Mea

n Sc

ore

Factors Affected The Quality Mean Score

87 | P a g e





Figure 22

3




Table 258





-0.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00


Mea

n Sc

ore


87 | P a g e





Figure 22

3




Table 258





-0.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00


Mea

n Sc

ore


88 | P a g e


categories when put together give 48% % in favour of quality of milma milk and only

27% disapproved the quality.

2. Differential Analysis - Urban vs. Rural Respondents

The total responses when differentiated on the basis of Urban &

Rural segments, the mean score on agreement on quality aspect of milma milk is found to

be 3.27 & 3.32 respectively. The Two segments show not much difference and more or

less uniform response and satisfaction level is expressed.

The mean score of both the Urban & Rural segments indicate a

strong need of improvement in the overall quality of milma milk. The mean of score

indicate that there is no substantial difference in opinion on quality aspect of milma milk

among urban & Rural Customers. Hence the reason poor market share in rural area can

not to be attributed to the quality factor.

Table 29

Table 30

89 | P a g e


3. Differential Analysis on Quality - Users Vs. Non Users:-

Of the total Respondent Participated in the survey, 61 % of them are found

using milma milk and 39 % found not using milma milk. When analyzed the Users &

Non Users of Urban and rural separately, the following results obtained.

The level of agreement on quality by Urban User –Non User proportion is

found to be 52%:31% and the same for rural user-Non User is 59%:33%. This shows a

substantial divide among User & Non users in Urban and in rural individually.

The Likert’s Scale score for users and Non users in Urban is obtained as

3.40 & 2.85. The Mean score for user and Non Users in rural is obtained as 3.50 & 3.04.

Table 31

When Users and Non users are taken in whole, the two

segments found evidently differing on quality satisfaction level. The Percentage Score for

agreement to quality level is 55%:33% . The Likert’s Scale means score (3.44) shows

that Level of satisfaction of Urban Customers quality improvement and the Mean Score

of 2.97 of Non users shows poor quality.

Table 32

90 | P a g e


Null Hypothesis - Ho: - There is no agreement among Milma users &Non

users on acceptance of quality level of milma milk.

Alternate Hypothesis .H1:- There is agreement among Milma users &Non

users on acceptance of quality level of milma milk.

Table 33 Observed Frequencies (O)

Table 34 Expected Frequencies (E)

ℎ = = ∑ ( )= 38.836

Table value for a 5 % of Level of Significance at 4 Degree of Freedom is 9.49ℎ 38.836 ℎ ℎ ℎ 9.49 ,Since the table value is greater than table value, the Null Hypothesis is rejected

and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

User GroupStrongly

Agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglyDisagree Col. Total

User 128 316 172 174 20 810Non User 10 30 34 42 14 130

Row Total 138 346 206 216 34 940

User GroupStrongly


Urban 119 298 178 186 29 810Rural 19 48 28 30 5 130

Row Total 138 346 206 216 34 940

Figure 23

91 | P a g e


The Chi Squire Test result shows a significant association among

Users and Non users in assessing the quality level of milma quality.

3.2 Price

The second variable, namely price is put to test based on two statements, which

are negating one another.

The price of milma milk is much higher than price of other milk sold in market

Based on prevailing cost level of commodities, cost of milma milk is reasonable.

The sum score on the Likert Scale Points received on the above are

classified on the basis of urban and rural users and non users. The analysis is done in

3 ways i.e. Urban vs. Rural, User Vs Non Users & overall. The final analysis table is

as shown in the table (5)

Table 35

1. Divide on Price Acceptance - User vs Non User

While 44 % of Users nodded yes to acceptance of Milma

Milk price, only 29 % on Non Users shared the same view. But on disagreement of price,

both shared similar view with 34% and 32% respectively. The disagreement on price

issue among users and non users is supported by the Mean score of 3.12 & 2.99.

The above issue of Difference of Opinion of Price of Milk among Users

and Non Users is further put under chi square test and the result is as follows.

DATA TABLE

Variable Customer GroupSample

Size n StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

%Total ?X ?X/n

Urban Users 46 92 10.87 33.70 19.57 28.26 7.61 100.00 287 3.12Rural Users 35 70 5.71 37.14 25.71 25.71 5.71 100.00 218 3.11

Total user Score 81 162 8.64 35.19 22.22 27.16 6.79 505 3.12Urban Non Users 13 26 7.69 23.08 38.46 19.23 11.54 100.00 77 2.96Rural Non Users 23 46 10.87 17.39 39.13 26.09 6.52 100.00 138 3.00

Total Non user Score 36 72 9.72 19.44 38.89 23.61 8.33 215 2.99

Price Sum Score 117 234 8.97 30.34 27.35 26.07 7.26 100.00 720 3.08

PERCENTAGE ANALYSISLIKERT'S 5

POINTANALYSIS

Price

92 | P a g e


Null Hypothesis - Ho: - There is difference of opinion among Milma users

&Non users on acceptance of prevailing price of the milk.

Alternate Hypothesis .H1:- There is no difference of opinion among Milma users

& Non users on acceptance of prevailing price of the milk.

Table 36 -Observed Frequencies (O)

Table 37 -Expected Frequencies (E)

Table38

ℎ = = ∑ ( )= 9.470

Table value for a 5 % of Level of Significance at 4 Degree of Freedom is 9.4889.488 > ℎ 9.470Since the table value of 9.488 is greater than observed value of

9.470, the Null Hypothesis is accepted and there is significant difference of

opinion on price acceptance among users and non users.

User GroupStrongly


Milma 81 14 57 36 44 232Other Than Milma 36 7 14 28 17 102

Row Total 117 21 71 64 61 334

User GroupStrongly


Milma 81 15 49 44 42 232Other Than Milma 36 6 22 20 19 102

Row Total 117 21 71 64 61 334

O E O-E (O-E)2

(O-E)3/

E81 81 -0.27 0.07 0.00114 15 -0.59 0.34 0.02457 49 7.68 59.02 1.19736 44 -8.46 71.49 1.60844 42 1.63 2.65 0.06336 36 0.27 0.07 0.002

7 6 0.59 0.34 0.05414 22 -7.68 59.02 2.72228 20 8.46 71.49 3.65817 19 -1.63 2.65 0.142

334 334 0 334 9.470

93 | P a g e


Therefore there is evidence for difference of opinion among Milma

Users & Non Users on acceptance prevailing price of the milma milk.

Figure 24

2. Divide on Price Acceptance – Urban Vs Rural

The data on price acceptance, segregated on the basis of Urban – Rural

population, as per table shown below. It is found that 41.46 % of the Urban and 37.07 %

of the Rural accept the price level. 35.34% of the urban and 31.89% of the rural

expressed have displeasure and think price of milma milk is high.

Table 39

The above issue of Difference of Opinion of Price of Milk among

Urban and Rural Users is further put under chi square test and the result is as follows.

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Total user Score Total Non user ScoreStrongly Agree 8.64 9.72Agree 35.19 19.44Neutral 22.22 38.89Disagree 27.16 23.61Strongly Disagree 6.79 8.33

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Agreement On Milma Milk Price - User Non user Divide

DATA TABLE

Variable Customer Group n StronglyAgree


%Total ?X ?X/n

Price Urban Users 92 10.87 33.70 19.57 28.26 7.61 100.00 287 3.12

Urban Non Users 26 7.69 23.08 38.46 19.23 11.54 100.00 77 2.96

Urban 118 10.17 31.36 23.73 26.27 8.47 100.00 364 3.08

Rural Users 70 5.71 37.14 25.71 25.71 5.71 100.00 218 3.11

Rural Non Users 46 10.87 17.39 39.13 26.09 6.52 100.00 138 3.00

Rural 116 7.76 29.31 31.03 25.86 6.03 100.00 356 3.07Price Sum Score 234 8.97 30.34 27.35 26.07 7.26 100.00 720 3.08


POINTANALYSIS

94 | P a g e


Null Hypothesis - Ho = There is no difference of opinion among in Urban &

Rural Milma users on acceptance of prevailing price of the milk.

Alternate Hypothesis .H1= There is difference of opinion among in Urban &

Rural Milma users on acceptance of prevailing price of the milk.

Table 40 Observed Frequencies (O)

Table 41 Estimated Frequencies (E):

ℎ = = ∑ ( )= 2.084

Table value for a 5 % of Level of Significance at 4 Degree of Freedom is 9.488ℎ 2.084 < 9.488Since the test statistic has low value than the table value of 9.488

the Null Hypothesis is accepted and there is no significant difference of opinion

on price acceptance among Urban and Rural customers.

User GroupStrongly


Urban 12 37 28 31 10 118Rural 9 34 36 30 7 116

Row Total 21 71 64 61 17 234

User GroupStrongly


Urban 11 36 32 31 9 118Rural 10 35 32 30 8 116

Row Total 21 71 64 61 17 234

O E O-E (O-E)2

(O-E)3/

E12 11 1.41 1.99 0.18837 36 1.20 1.43 0.04028 32 -4.27 18.26 0.56631 31 0.24 0.06 0.00210 9 1.43 2.04 0.238

9 10 -1.41 1.99 0.19134 35 -1.20 1.43 0.04136 32 4.27 18.26 0.57630 30 -0.24 0.06 0.002

7 8 -1.43 2.04 0.242234 234 0 234 2.084

95 | P a g e


. The chi square test results indicate that there is no significant divide

among Urban & Rural customers on price acceptance.

Figure 25

The Percentage Score & mean score on price variable are analyzed on

urban and rural sector separately; The Percentage score supported with Likert score

indicate that the prevailing price of milma milk is not fully acceptable. The Score of

urban and rural are 3.08 & 3.07... The results show no significant divide on the response

to milma milk price The Chi Square test conducted substantiate the mean score indication

that there is no conflict of opinion towards price of milma milk in urban and rural area.

3. Price Acceptance – Overall RatingTable 42

The sum score indicate that the price of milma milk is not fully acceptable

to the respondents in whole. But there is a difference of opinion between users and non

users. While 44 % of Users nodded yes to acceptance of Milma Milk price, only 29 % on

Non Users shared the same view and there is evidence for difference in view among users

and non users.

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly DisagreeUrban 10.17 31.36 23.73 26.27 8.47Rural 7.76 29.31 31.03 25.86 6.03

Perc

enat

ge S

core

Price Acceptance - Urban Vs Rural Divide

CustomerGroup

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglyDisagree

MeanScore

Users . . . . . 3.12

Non -Users . . . . . 2.09

Total 8.97 30.34 27.35 26.07 7.26 3.08

96 | P a g e


3.3 Brand Loyalty

The brand loyalty of the customers is put into test by way of seeking

response to 4 statements which meant to convey the following.

There is no milk option other than milma

Milma is the cherished goodness of Kerala

Willing to buy if sold under milma brand

A regular user of milma products.

The responses received are analyzed under summation analysis method of

Likert’s scale, as presented in the table ().

Table 43

The brand loyalty among the urban and rural is analyzed and the findings

are as shown below as per Table44

Table 44

DATA TABLE

Variable Customer Group n StronglyAgree


%Total ∑X ∑X/n

Urban Users 184 20.65 34.24 16.30 19.57 9.24 100.00 621 3.38

Rural Users 140 10.71 42.86 17.14 22.86 6.43 100.00 460 3.29

Users 324 16.36 37.96 16.67 20.99 8.02 100.00 1081 3.34

Urban Non Users 52 1.92 26.92 36.54 26.92 7.69 100.00 150 2.88

Rural Non Users 92 8.70 18.48 28.26 28.26 16.30 100.00 253 2.75

Non users 144 6.25 21.53 31.25 27.78 13.19 100.00 403 2.80

All Samples Total 468 13.25 32.91 21.15 23.08 9.62 100.00 1484 3.17


POINTANALYSIS

BrandLoyalty

DATA TABLE

Variable Customer Group Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

StronglyDisagree ?X/n

Users 16.36 37.96 16.67 20.99 8.02 3.34

Non users 6.25 21.53 31.25 27.78 13.19 2.80

Total 13.25 32.91 21.15 23.08 9.62 3.17


POINTANALYSIS

BrandLoyalty

97 | P a g e


Figure 26

Among milma users, the strongly agreeing (16%) and a mere

agreeing (38%) sectors jointly constitute 54% of the brand loyalty level of milma. The

Disagree and strongly disagree segment jointly constitute 29% of the switch over –

ready customers. 17% of the users are in border line casting neither allegiance nor

aversion to milma.

Figure 27

Among Non users, 28 % of the segment shows loyalty, but this loyalty is

not seen translated in regular product consumption. The existence of this “Non-user but

16%

38%17%

21%

8%

Extent of Brand Loylaty of Milma Users

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6%

22%

31%

28%

13%

Extent of Brand Loyalty of Milma- Non users

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

98 | P a g e


Brand Loyal” segment can be substantiated by the of Milk market share of the Mixed

Sources reported by customers to meet the 24% of their milk demand.

3.4 Market Access

Market access is a crucial aspect for a product to enjoy its desired

market share. Market access that comes under the “Place” attribute of a product is hence

made a part of 5 P’s of Product Market Mix.

Market access of milma milk is tested for determining the

acceptance level among the customers by way of making two negative statements based

on the following two aspects.

Availability of Milma Milk In Desired Time

Availability of Milma Milk In Desired Quantity

The scale order of the Likert’s scale point originally obtained is reversed

for further analysis as the original statement was asked in a negative sense. The reversed

data is tabulated for arriving percentage score and mean score as shown in the table ()

Table 45

The overall percentage score obtained is as follows.

Those agreed to good or moderate access - 39 %

Those Disagreed to Good Access - 46 %

Those neither agreed nor disagreed - 15 %

DATA TABLE




%Total ?X ?X/n

Urban Users 46 92 10.87 42.39 8.70 26.09 11.96 100.00 289 3.14

Urban Non Users 13 26 7.69 19.23 30.77 34.62 7.69 100.00 74 2.85

Urban 59 118 10.17 37.29 13.56 27.97 11.02 100.00 363 3.08Rural Users 35 70 4.29 30.00 11.43 45.71 8.57 100.00 193 2.76

Rural Non Users 23 46 4.35 19.57 26.09 39.13 10.87 100.00 123 2.67

Rural 58 116 4.31 25.86 17.24 43.10 9.48 100.00 316 2.72

Total 176 234 7.26 31.62 15.38 35.47 10.26 100.00 679 2.90

PERCENTAGE ANALYSISLIKERT'S 5 POINT

ANALYSIS

MarketAccess

99 | P a g e


Figure 28

Considering the 50 % market share of milma, the 46 % of

customers expressing dissatisfaction on market access can be interpreted in two ways.

Either milma has a discontented lot of customers in terms of the “place” aspect of milma

Milk or the other half of 50% of the market share is not amenable to milma because of

poor market access. In either case, the Mean Score 2.90 (Table ()) is showing poor

market access for Milma Milk.

Table 46

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

%Strongly Agree 7.26Agree 31.62Neutral 15.38Disagree 35.47Strongly Disagree 10.26

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Market Access of Milma Milk

DATA TABLE




%Total ?X ?X/n

Urban 59 118 10.17 37.29 13.56 27.97 11.02 100.00 363 3.08

Rural 58 116 4.31 25.86 17.24 43.10 9.48 100.00 316 2.72

Total 176 234 7.26 31.62 15.38 35.47 10.26 100.00 679 2.90


ANALYSIS

MarketAccess

100 | P a g e


1. Market Access of Milma Milk – Urban Vs. Rural Divide:-

When data pertaining to Urban and Rural respondents analyzed

separately, a distinct divide on the acceptance level of market access has come up

evidently.

Of the total urban customers, 47% showed satisfaction and 39 % showed

dissatisfaction on market access. Only 13.56 % abstained from a clear division.

Among Rural customers the overall mean score is only 2.72, which

indicate a below average level of acceptance for the market access of milma milk. . This

score very well stands supported by the percentage score obtained. Only 30% of the Rural

appreciated the market access of milma. 53% of the customer in rural sector showed

dissatisfaction on reaching milma milk in terms of quantity and time. 17.24 % stood in

the gray area.

Figure 29

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00

Urban RuralStrongly Agree 10.17 4.31

Agree 37.29 25.86

Neutral 13.56 17.24

Disagree 27.97 43.10

Strongly Disagree 11.02 9.48

Per

cent

age

Scor

e

Market Access of Milma Milk -Urban Vs Rural Divide

101 | P a g e


2. Market Access of Milma Milk – User Vs. Non User Divide:-

Data Collected in respect of the variable “Market Access” when analyzed

for any possible agreement among users and Non users, following results are obtained.

Table 47

The level of agreement and disagreement among users is found in an equal proportion i.e

45 % each. There for the over rating of poor access stand true for users and non users in

their agreement.

Table 48

Agree Disagree Neutral TotalUsers 45 % 45% 10% 100 % 2.98Non users 25 % 47 % 28 % 100 % 2.74Sum Score 39 % 46 % 15 % 100 % 2.90

DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

%Total ∑X/n

Urban Users 10.87 42.39 8.70 26.09 11.96 100.00 3.14Rural Users 4.29 30.00 11.43 45.71 8.57 100.00 2.76Users 8.02 37.04 9.88 34.57 10.49 100.00 2.98Urban Non Users 7.69 19.23 30.77 34.62 7.69 100.00 2.85

Rural Non Users 4.35 19.57 26.09 39.13 10.87 100.00 2.67

Non Users 5.56 19.44 27.78 37.50 9.72 100.00 2.74

Total 7.26 31.62 15.38 35.47 10.26 100.00 2.90


POINTANALYSIS

MarketAccess

102 | P a g e


3.5 Market Awareness

Market awareness is put into test mainly on the

basis of two statements as follows.

There Are Many Brands Available Other Than Milma

Multiple Fat Variant Milk Is Available Under Milma Brand

The response to the above two statements are tabulated and analyzed to arrive the

following percentage s scores s and mean score values.

1. Percentage ScoreTable 49

The above Percentage Scores indicate strong market awareness among the

customers. It shows a handsome 32% strong agreements and 53 % general agreements.

Of the total customers 85 % of them are well aware of milma milk variants and only 15%

constitute both the disagreeing and neutral segments.

2. Likert Scale – Mean ScoreTable50

A Mean score of 4.12 obtained on Likert’s Score, is very well

corroborate with the percentage score of 85 % favoring good market awareness.

A B C D E nFullyAgree

Agree Nuetral DisagreeFully

Disagree%Total

Market Awareness

Total 74 125 26 8 1 234 31.62 53.42 11.11 3.42 0.43 100

POINTS PERCENTAGE

Variable

A B C D E n X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 ∑X ∑X / n

Market Awareness AX5 BX4 CX3 DX2 EX1

Total 74 125 26 8 1 234 370 500 78 16 1 965 4.12

POINTS LIKERT'S 5 POINT ANALYSIS -

Variable

103 | P a g e


3. Market Awareness – Urban & Rural Divide:-

Both the urban and rural segments maintain the same level of

satisfaction with 86 % and 83.50 % of satisfaction level respectively. In the urban

sector only 6 % found disagreeing with market knowledge of milma products and 8 %

are found neutral.

In Rural segment, a nominal 2 % found stand against the claim of

good market knowledge of milma while 14.50% found in the gray area.

Table 51

DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

∑X/n

Urban 29.66 56.78 7.63 5.08 0.85 4.09

Rural 33.62 50.00 14.66 1.72 - 4.16

Total 31.62 53.42 11.11 3.42 0.43 4.12


POINTANALYSIS

MarketAwareness

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Urban Rural TotalStrongly Agree 29.66 33.62 31.62Agree 56.78 50.00 53.42Neutral 7.63 14.66 11.11Disagree 5.08 1.72 3.42Strongly Disagree 0.85 - 0.43

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Market Awareness Level In Urban & Rural

Figure 30

104 | P a g e


4. Market Awareness – User – Non User Divide:-

The rate of agreement with market awareness of milma milk of Users

(88%) and Non Users (78%) shows only a 10 % difference of opinion. The opposing

segment together with neutral responses constitutes only 12 % among Urbans and 22 %

among the rurals.

Table 52

DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

%Total ∑X/n

Users 32.72 55.56 8.02 3.70 - 100.00 4.17

Non Users 29.17 48.61 18.06 2.78 1.39 100.00 4.01

Total 31.62 53.42 11.11 3.42 0.43 100.00 4.12


POINTANALYSIS

MarketAwareness

-

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Users Non Users TotalStrongly Agree 32.72 29.17 31.62

Agree 55.56 48.61 53.42

Neutral 8.02 18.06 11.11

Disagree 3.70 2.78 3.42

Strongly Disagree - 1.39 0.43

∑X/n 4.17 4.01 4.12

Per

cent

age

Scor

e

Market Awareness Level amongMilma Users & Non Users

Figure 31

105 | P a g e


3.6 Value Expectation

The value expectation of customers, in respect of value added milk

from milma, is attempted to put to test by way of two statements as follows.

I Will Go For “Ready To Drink Milk” If Made Available.

I Won’t Mind Paying A Bit More For Value Added Milk

The sum score obtained for the above two is as follows.

Table 53

The response to the proposal of value added milk is poor among both

urban and rural segments. All together there are only 35 % respondents stood positively

with the option of introducing pasteurized ready to drink milk. Of the rest, 44 %

disagreed with the proposal that include the 13% who registered their strong reservation

on the idea and 21 % of respondents stood neutral. The neutrals are a significant lot as

if milma could win them; the idea of value added milk will have 56 % takers.

Table 54

DATA TABLE

Variable CustomerGroup

n StronglyAgree


%Total ∑X ∑X/n

Urban 118 7.63 30.51 11.86 37.29 12.71 100.00 334 2.83

Rural 116 4.31 27.59 30.17 24.14 13.79 100.00 330 2.84

Total 234 5.98 29.06 20.94 30.77 13.25 100.00 664 2.84


ANALYSISLikert'sScore

ValueExpectation

DATA TABLE




∑X ∑X/n

Urban Users 46 92 9.78 36.96 7.61 36.96 8.70 278 3.02

Rural Users 35 70 7.14 28.57 28.57 25.71 10.00 208 2.97

Users 81 162 8.64 33.33 16.67 32.10 9.26 486 3.00

Urban Non Users 13 26 - 7.69 26.92 38.46 26.92 56 2.15

Rural Non Users 23 46 - 26.09 32.61 21.74 19.57 122 2.65

Non users 36 72 - 19.44 30.56 27.78 22.22 178 2.47

Total 117 234 5.98 29.06 20.94 30.77 13.25 664 2.84


ANALYSIS

ValueExpectation

106 | P a g e


1. Urban & Rural Divide on Value expectationTable55

General unfavorable Attitude towards the proposal for value added milk

remains in the same trends when urban and rural scores analyzed separately. Among

Urbans, while 38% voted for, 32% of the rurals stood with them. But on the majority

side, 50 % of the Urbans and 38 % of Rurals are standing against the value addition

proposal. The mid fielders is constituted of 30 % of rurals and 12 % of Urbans

Figure 32

DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

∑X/n

Urban 7.63 30.51 11.86 37.29 12.71 2.83

Rural 4.31 27.59 30.17 24.14 13.79 2.84

Total 5.98 29.06 20.94 30.77 13.25 2.84


POINTANALYSIS

ValueExpectation

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Urban Rural TotalStrongly Agree 7.63 4.31 5.98

Agree 30.51 27.59 29.06

Neutral 11.86 30.17 20.94

Disagree 37.29 24.14 30.77

Strongly Disagree 12.71 13.79 13.25

Per

cent

age

Tot

al

Urban & Rural User ExpectationOn Value Added Milk

107 | P a g e


2. User – Non User Divide on Value expectationTable56

Among milma users, 42 % agreed with the proposal

and 41 % disagreed. 17% is undecided.

Among Non Users, quite naturally, there are no strong supporters and 50

% is standing against the proposal. Only 19 % of the non users registered a general

agreement to the proposal of value added milk. The remaining 31% is undecided.

Figure 33

DATA TABLE




%Total ∑X ∑X/n

Urban Users 46 92 9.78 36.96 7.61 36.96 8.70 100.00 278 3.02

Urban Non Users 13 26 - 7.69 26.92 38.46 26.92 100.00 56 2.15

Urban 59 118 7.63 30.51 11.86 37.29 12.71 100.00 334 2.83

Rural Users 35 70 7.14 28.57 28.57 25.71 10.00 100.00 208 2.97

Rural Non Users 23 46 - 26.09 32.61 21.74 19.57 100.00 122 2.65

Rural 58 116 4.31 27.59 30.17 24.14 13.79 100.00 330 2.84

Total 117 234 5.98 29.06 20.94 30.77 13.25 100.00 664 2.84


ANALYSIS

ValueExpectation

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Users Non users TotalStrongly Agree 8.64 - 5.98

Agree 33.33 19.44 29.06

Neutral 16.67 30.56 20.94

Disagree 32.10 27.78 30.77

Strongly Disagree 9.26 22.22 13.25

Per

cent

age

Tot

al

User & Non User ExpectationOn Value Added Milk

108 | P a g e


3.7 Overall Rating By Customers

Based on the constituent variable wise analysis, a final picture of satisfactionlevel of respondents is arrived as follows.

Level of Satisfaction of Milma Users

Table57

Level of Satisfaction of Milma Non_Users

Table 58

DATA TABLE -Milma

_Non Users

Sl No Variable To Be Analysed Strogly Agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglyDisagree

Mean Score(∑X/n )

1 Quality 8% 25% 33% 26% 9% 2.972 Brand Loyalty 6% 22% 31% 28% 13% 2.803 Price 10% 19% 39% 24% 8% 2.994 Market Access 6% 19% 28% 38% 10% 2.745 Market Awarnes 29% 49% 18% 3% 1% 4.016 Value Expectation 0% 19% 31% 28% 22% 2.477 All Variable Score 9% 25% 31% 25% 10% 2.97


POINT ANALYSIS

DATA TABLE_Milma _

User

Sl No Variable To Be Analysed Strogly Agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglyDisagree

Mean Score(∑X/n )

1 Quality 16% 39% 21% 21% 2% 3.442 Brand Loyalty 16% 38% 17% 21% 8% 3.343 Price 9% 35% 22% 27% 7% 3.124 Market Access 8% 37% 10% 35% 10% 2.985 Market Awarnes 33% 56% 8% 4% 0% 4.176 Value Expectation 9% 33% 17% 32% 9% 3.007 All Variable Score 15% 39% 18% 22% 5% 3.38


POINT ANALYSIS

109 | P a g e


1. Summed Mean Score

The summed mean score of 3.25 shows need of improvementin the customer functions of milma. When analyzing the Urban & Rural segments separately,though urban score (3.35) come above that of rural (3.07), both are lying in the “Need toImprove” region of Likert’s’ Scale.

Figure 34

2. Percentage score:-

The Overall percentage score on Customer Functions of

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy is analyzed for chances of divide between Urban Vs Rural and

User Vs Non User segments.

1. Urban Vs Rural Table 59

2.902.953.003.053.103.153.203.253.303.353.40

Urban Rural Total∑X/n 3.35 3.07 3.25

Mea

n Sc

ore

Mean Score - ∑X/n

Sector For Against Neutral

Urban 54 % 28 % 18%

Rural 38 % 53 % 9 %

110 | P a g e


Figure 35

2. User Vs Non User:-Table 60

DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

∑X/n

Urban Users 17.39 37.25 16.50 23.12 5.73 3.37Rural Users 14.71 36.48 18.90 23.92 5.98 3.30Users Total 16.18 36.90 17.59 23.48 5.84 3.34Urban Non Users 10.70 28.99 31.32 21.98 7.00 3.14Rural Non Users 9.09 24.90 32.81 23.52 9.68 3.00Non users 9.90 26.96 32.06 22.75 8.33 3.07Total 13.95 33.37 22.73 23.22 6.73 3.25

Over AllCustomerFunctionRating


POINTANALYSIS

110 | P a g e


Figure 35


DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

∑X/n




POINTANALYSIS

110 | P a g e


Figure 35


DATA TABLE



StronglyDisagree

∑X/n




POINTANALYSIS

111 | P a g e


Figure 36

Figure 37

Figure 38

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Urban Users Rural UsersStrongly Agree 17.39 14.71

Agree 37.25 36.48

Neutral 16.50 18.90



∑X/n 3.37 3.30

Perc

enta

ge Sc

ore

Over All Rating -By Users - Urban - Rural Divide

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Urban Non Users Rural Non UsersStrongly Agree 10.70 9.09

Agree 28.99 24.90

Neutral 31.32 32.81



∑X/n 3.14 3.00

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Over All Rating -By Non Users -Urban - Rural Divide

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Users Total Non usersStrongly Agree 16.18 9.90

Agree 36.90 26.96

Neutral 17.59 32.06



∑X/n 3.34 3.07

Perc

enta

ge Sc

ore

Over All Rating - User &. Non User -Divide

112 | P a g e


Part -2

Data Analysis &

Interpretation

In Relation To Farmers

113 | P a g e


1. Farmers survey - StatisticsTable 61

Survey Sample Statistics on Farmers - 100 Nos.

Farmer Locations Visited

1 Idichakkaplamoodu KUCS (Apcos)

2 Kalllayam KUCS (Apcos)

3 Vellanad KUCS (Apcos)

# Description Value

1 Noo. Of Sample Farmers Interviewd 100 Nos.

2 No of Milch Animal owned 206 Nos.

3 Average Annual Milching Days Per Animal 260 Days

4 Average Daily Recurring Cost Per Animal 205.00Rs.

5 Total Milk production By Respondent Farmers 1884.000 Litres

6 Total Daily Milk Consumption by Farmers 204.000 Litres

7 Total Daily Dispoable Surplus of Milk 1680.000 Litres

8 Total Milk Quantity Diverted for Local Sale 416.000 Litres

9 Total Milk Procured By APCOS 1264.000 Litres

10 Total Milk Procured & Sold Locally By APCOS @ 40 % 505.600 Litres

11 Total Milk Procured & Sent to Milma By APCOS @ 60% 758.400 Litres

12 Average Daily Milk Quantity Milma Failed to Procure 921.600 Litres

13 Average Per Litre Rate Paid by Milma 26.95Rs.

14 Average Per Litre Rate Expectation of farmers 34.35Rs.

114 | P a g e


2. Characteristics Of Respondent - Farmers Samples

1. Farmer Groups Based On Animals Owned

The respondent farmer lot is analyzed for the number of the animals

owned by them. 38 % of the farmers own only single animal. Two animal owners

are 35 %. 17 % comes in 3 animal owner groups and 7 % owns 4 animals. There

only 3% farmers who owns 5 or above number of animals.

The above facts indicate that 73 % of the farmers in the district are

marginal farmers having 1 0r 2 milch animals. The analysis shows that, on an

average 2.06 Numbers of Milch Animals are owned by a single farmer.

Table 62

Table 63

Grouping of Farmers based on Animals Owned Strength %

1-Animal Farmers 38 %




5 Above-Animal Farmers 3 %

Total 100 %

Farming Pattern In terms of No. of Animals Owned

No. of Animals Farmer Count Animal CountAveragePer HeadAnimal

1 38 382 35 703 17 514 7 28

5 & Above 3 19Total 100 206 2.06

115 | P a g e


2. Milk Production Rate – Per Farmer & Per Animal:-

Milk Yield differs from animal to animal and is generally a multi factorial

variable depending on many factors including Breed, climatic Changes, Feed Quality,

Stage of Lactation and General Health of the animal. The overall effect of the above

factors will reflect in the milk yield. Therefore the an average current yield rate is assed

at four level scale like 5 L Below → 5 To 10 L → 10 To 15 L →15 L Above .

70 % of the farmers and 64 % of the animals are found lying in the 5 To 10 Liter

range. The next major group is 10 to 15 Liter a day group. There only 3 % farmers and

2% 3 % animals and 2 % farmers in the 15 Liters & Above Group.

Table 64

The analysis shows that the average yield per animal in the district is 9.15

Liters. An earlier study by a team of experts appointed by milma also arrived at an

average of 9.40 Liters. Average Productivity per farmer is 18.840 Liters

Table 65

Daily Milk Production Quantity Vs. Number of Animal & Farmers

Daily Per Animal Production Level Per

FarmerAnimal

Count % Count % Count< 5 Litres 4 1.94% 3 3.00% 1.33

5 To 10 Litres Below 132 64.08% 70 70.00% 1.8910 Litre To 15 Litres Below 64 31.07% 25 25.00% 2.56

15Litres & Above 6 2.91% 2 2.00% 3.00Total 206 100.00% 100 100.00% 2.06

Animals Farmers

Milk Yiled Rate Per Animal

Farm Size In termsof No. of Animals

Animal CountMilk Production In

Liters

AveragePer HeadAnimal

1 38 4392 70 674

3 51 3384 28 253

5 10 709 9 110

Total 206 1884 9.15

116 | P a g e


3. Age Wise Segregation Of Farmer Lot:-

The eldest farmer is 75 years old and the youngest is 23 years. . The analysis of

demographic data on age of farmers shows that 83 % of the farmers are in the group of

45 & above of which 65 % are males and 35% are females. 17% are below 45 and this

lot has male-female parity. The new generation farmers though less in numbers,

shows a positive indication of increasing number of women farmers and potential for

promoting micro level women farmers .

Table 66

The average age of farmers in 55 and average experience is 32

Years. Therefore is can be assumed that an average farmer started engaging in dairy

farming at the age of 23 will acquire an experience of 30 plus years by the time he

reaches age of 55. The data table below on experience of farmers analyzed on age

group wise, 47 % of the Farmers are 56 above old and 36 % is between the age of 45

and 55. Only 17 % of the farmers in their mid 40 are of below.

Age Distribution of FarmersAge Group Male % Female % Total %30 & Down 2 3.17% 0 0.00% 2 2.00%

31-35 1 1.59% 2 5.41% 3 3.00%36-40 2 3.17% 2 5.41% 4 4.00%41-45 4 6.35% 4 10.81% 8 8.00%46-50 4 6.35% 9 24.32% 13 13.00%51-55 16 25.40% 9 24.32% 25 25.00%56-60 4 6.35% 7 18.92% 11 11.00%61-65 18 28.57% 2 5.41% 20 20.00%66-70 7 11.11% 1 2.70% 8 8.00%

71 & ABove Up 5 7.94% 1 2.70% 6 6.00%Total 63 100.00% 37 100.00% 100

AbstractUP TO 45 9 14.29% 8 21.62% 17.00 17.00%

46 TO 55 20 31.75% 18 48.65% 38.00 38.00%55 ABOVE 34 53.97% 11 29.73% 45.00 45.00%

Total 63 100.00% 37 100.00% 100.00

117 | P a g e


Studies show that the life expectancy in Kerala is 60 years. This

when read along with the above assumption and the data table figures, revels that 47 %

of the farmer lot will be extinct by next 5 years and another 36 % within 10 years

time? From the current lot only 17 % of the farmers will be left in the farms after 10

years.

Table 67

3. Prospects of Dairy Farming:-

The data analysis shows that 64 % of the farmers are confident of

bringing their children in to dairy farming. The Likert Scale score on this aspect is as

follows.

Table 68

Age Group and Years of Experience

Age Group

No. ofFarmers

AverageAge

TotalExperince (In Years)

AverageExpereince (In Years)

30 Down 2 12 6

31-45 15 145 10

46-55 36 630 18

56-65 33 794 24

65 Above 14 478 34

Total 100 55 2059 21

FullyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree

FullyDisagree

Fsâ a¡Ä¡v £ocIrjnbnÂGsd XmXv]crw Dv 38.00 26.00 13.00 10.00 13.00

Farming Potential

118 | P a g e


4. Statistics on Milk Production, Consumption andProcurement:-

The data on milk production and procurement are

analyzed for arriving the production, consumption and procurement details and the

analysis results are as detailed in table () below.

Table 69

Milk Production , Consumption and Procurement Statstics

1 Milk Production Statstics

Description Value

Average Per day Production Per Farmer 18.840 Litres

Average Milk Yield Per Day Per Animal 9.146 Litres

Average No. of Animal Per farmer 2.06 Nos.

2 Milk Consumption Statstics

Description Value

Average Per Animal Milk Consumed By Farmer Family 0.990 Litres

Average Per Animal Disposable Milk Available with Farmer 8.155 Litres

Total Milk Produced Per Animal 9.146 Litres

3 Milk Procurement Statstics

Description Value

Average Per Animal Disposable Milk Available 8.155 Litres

Average Per Animal Milk Diverted By Farmers 2.019 Litres

Average Per Animal Milk Poured to APCOS By Farmers 6.136 Litres

Average Per Animal Milk Procured & Sold by APCOS 2.454 Litres

Average Per Animal Milk Procured & Sent to Milma by APCOS 3.682 Litres

Average Per Animal Milk Milma Fails to Procure 4.474 Litres

% of Milk Procured By APCOS 75.24 %

% of Milk Diversion By Farmers 24.76 %

% of Milk Diversion By APCOS 30.10 %

% of Milk Procured by Milma 45.14 %

% of Disposable Milk of APCOS Farmers Milma Fails to Procure 54.86 %

119 | P a g e


Based on the data analysis the following, facts are found out. An average farmer own 2.06

animals and produce 18.840 Liters of milk per day. The yield of his animal is 9.15 Liters a

day. Out of the 9.15 Liters obtained a day per animal, the farmer family consumes 0. 990

liters and keep the remaining 8.155 liters as disposable surplus for procurement.

Out of the total production 9.150 Liters .990 Liters (11 %) is

consumed by farmer. The remaining 8.155 Liters (89% is available for disposal. Out of the

disposable surplus of 8.155 Liters of milk, 6.136 Liters (75.24%) are poured in the Primary

(APCOS) Milk Society as a Member and divert the remaining 2.019 liters (24.76%) to other

parties. Only 3.682 Liters per animal Out of the disposable surplus of 8.155 Liters per

animal could be procured by milma. . This comes to a mere 45 % of the disposable surplus

of the farmer. Milma fails to procure a good portion of the surplus milk to the tune 55 % per

animal.

Figure 39

11%

22%

27%

40%

Milk Flow - Per Day Per AnimalSelf Consumtion Milk Diverted By Farmers

Milk Procured & Sold by APCOS Milk Procured & Sent to Milma by APCOS

120 | P a g e


5. Pricing Options & Income out of Milk Sales :-

The data made available in this study are analyzed and made

use in calculating the possible derivable income out of sale of milk adopting different

strategies including the current and hypothetical one. This is intended to test various pricing

options and calculate the loss or gain out of such a policy. The study is done based on three

instances. One is the current prevailing selling pattern and the other three hypothetic.

Case -1

Hypothetical Case Of Farmer Pouring Entire Surplus MilkTo Milma Accepting The Prevailing Rate Rs. 27/- PerLiter Offered By Milma

Case-2The Prevailing Mixed Strategy Of Pouring To APCOS,Milma And Third Party

Case-3

Hypothetical Case Of Farmer Pouring Entire Surplus MilkTo Milma For The Expected Average Price Of Rs.35/- PerLiter

Case -4Hypothetical case of a farmer who continue to follow amixed strategy despite allowing his expected price

Each of the above cases is analyzed with the obtained data as

follows. In this analysis, only the variable cost of production is reckoned. The variable

cost is taken solely on the basis of self assessment of farmers that is personally expressed

by the respondent farmers. Based on the individual assessment value, the average daily

cost per an animal is arrived at Rs. 205/- . Milk yield of an animal is estimated as 9.150

Liters a day. Therefore the per liter rearing cost per animal is arrived at Rs.22.40.

A previous expert study in the year 2011, found out that the

average cost of production varies from Rs.26.88 to Rs. 26.64 Between flush and lean

season in Thiruvananthapuram district. In the state level this is in the range of Rs.26.75 ↔

Rs. 26.27. Since the Opinion cost of farmer is less than that of the researched figure, the

opinion cost of Rs.22.40 is taken for the calculation purpose . This is done according to

least cost principle followed in Cost Accounting

121 | P a g e


Table 70

Case -1

Hypothetical Case Of Farmer Pouring Entire Surplus MilkTo Milma Accepting The Prevailing Rate Rs. 27/- PerLiter Offered By Milma

1 Average Daily Disposable Surplus Per Animal 8.16 Litres

2 Average Daily Disposable Surplus Per 2.06 Animal 16.80 Litres

3 Average Milching Days Per Animal 260.00 Days

4Average annual Milk poured to Milma by an average farmerhaving 2.06 animals

4,367.82 Litres

5 Average Per Litre Rate Pid by Milma 26.95Rs.

6 Average Annual Sales Proceeds to farmer paid by milma 1,17,712.70Rs.

7 Annual Saving on Milk Produced and Consumed @Rs.27/- 6,938.97Rs.

8 Average Annual Sales Proceeds to farmer 1,24,651.67Rs.


10 Average Annual Recurring Cost for 2.06 aninmls 1,54,139.50Rs.

11 Annual Loss Incurred By Farmer (10-8) 29,487.83Rs.

Per Litre Loss Incurred by Farmer who relay only Milma 6.75Rs.

122 | P a g e


Table 71

Case-2The Prevailing Mixed Strategy Of Pouring To APCOS,Milma And Third Party


2Average annual (260 Days) Disposable Surplus Per Farmerhaving 2.06 animals

4,367.82 Litres

3 Milk Diverted & Sold by farmer @ Rs.35.00 1,081.47 Litres

4 Milk Diverted & Sold by APCOS @ Rs.28.00 1,314.71 Litres

5 Milk sold to Milma @Rs. 27.00 1,971.63 Litres

6 Annual Sales Proceeds for local sales @ Rs.35.00 43,258.87Rs.

7 Annual Sales Proceeds for APCOS sales @ Rs.28.00 36,811.97Rs.

8 Annual Sales Proceeds for Milma sales @ Rs.27.00 53,234.09Rs.

9 Total Sales proceeds by adopting mixed pouring strategy 1,33,304.93Rs.





14 Annual Loss Incurred By Farmer (13-11) 13,884.77Rs.

Per Litre Loss Incurred by Farmer who partly relay milma 3.18Rs.

123 | P a g e


Table 72

Case-3

Hypothetical Case Of Farmer Pouring Entire Surplus MilkTo Milma For The Expected Average Price Of Rs.35/- PerLiter


2 Average Daily Disposable Surplus Per 2.06 Animal 16.80 Litres

3 Average Milching Days Per Animal 260.00 Days

4Average annual Milk poured to Milma by an average farmer

having 2.06 animals4,367.82 Litres

5 Average Per Litre Rate Pid by Milma 34.35Rs.

6 Average Annual Sales Proceeds to farmer paid by milma 1,50,034.55Rs.

7 Annual Saving on Milk Produced and Consumed @Rs.34.35/- 8,844.29Rs.




11 Annual Surplus earned By Farmer (10-8) 4,739.34Rs.

Per Litre Susplus earned by Farmer who relay only milma 1.09Rs.

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.00

Fully Agree 46.00Agree 17.00Neutral 13.00Disagree 10.00Fully Disagree 14.00Mean Score 3.71

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Re

spo

nse

Response To Low Milk ValueFactor

124 | P a g e


Case -4Hypothetical case of a farmer who continue tofollow a mixed strategy despite allowing hisexpected price

Table 73


2Average annual (260 Days) Disposable Surplus Per Farmerhaving 2.06 animals

4,367.82 Litres

3 Milk Diverted & Sold by farmer @ Rs.40.00 1,081.47 Litres

4 Milk Diverted & Sold by APCOS @ Rs.36.00 1,314.71 Litres

5 Milk sold to Milma @Rs. 35.00 1,971.63 Litres

6 Annual Sales Proceeds for local sales @ Rs.40.00 43,258.87Rs.

7 Annual Sales Proceeds for APCOS sales @ Rs.36.00 47,329.68Rs.

8 Annual Sales Proceeds for Milma sales @ Rs.35.00 69,007.16Rs.

9 Total Sales proceeds by adopting mixed pouring strategy 1,59,595.70Rs.





14 Annual ProfitEarned By Farmer (13-11) 14,465.20Rs.

Per Litre Surplus Earned by Farmer who obtain hisexpected price and contune to follow a mixed startegy

3.31Rs.

125 | P a g e


From the above caluculations , it s found that a farmer who continue

to obatin the prevailing milk value from milma and continue to follow the current mixed

pouring stategywill sustains a loss of Rs.3.18 Per Liter.

If he pour his entire milk production to milma at the prevailing rate

of Rs.27/- Per Liter , his loss will go upto Rs.6.75 / Liter . and his additional loss on

account of relying milma entirely , will be Rs.3.57 / Liter . Which means that a farmer if

forced to pour his entire milk to milma at the prevailing rate , his loss per liter will be more

than twice than what he suffer now.

If farmer is allowed of his expected price of milk at Rs.35/- Per Liter, and

opt to pour the entire susplus milk to milma, he could make a surplus of Rs.1.09 Per Liter.

On the contrary, if the farmer obtain his expected price and he go on continue

his mixed pouring stategy, he will be earing Rs. 3.31 Per Liter.

The above four cases are summarized in the table below.

Table 74

Case # Price Status Pouring Strategy Gain/Loss Amount

1 Curent Rate Rs.27/- Pour Milma Fully Loss Rs.6.75

2 Current Rate Rs.27/- Mixed Pouring Loss Rs.3.18

3 Expected Rate Rs.35/- Pour Milma Fully Gain Rs.1.09

4 Expected Rate Rs.35/- Mixed Pouring Gain Rs.3.31

The portion that milma receives from its member owner farmers is

only half of what they produce. The above calculations indicate that at the prevailing rate,

farmer can not be foreced to pour their entire surplus to milma. But if milma can provide a

price in parity to their average expectation, milma can sucesssffuly collect a substantail

portion of their surplus millk , if not fully. But by doing so milma has to ensure that the

surplus milk is not being diverted by farmers and take undue price advantge .

126 | P a g e


6. Data Analysis – Objective –Variable Wise:-

The farmers suvey is done in such manner as to test the relevent variables that are

identifed in relation to the follwing aspects of the objective of this study

1. Over All Satisfaction Of Farmers On Milma Operations

2. Reasons For Not Pouring Milk Fully To Milma

3. Farmers Rating On The Production Enhance Ment Programmes

1. The Extent Of Satisfaction Level Of Farmers With Regard To The Following Set OfVariables .

1) Acceptance of Milma Management Style2) Public realtions and Communication3) Acceptanc eof the Organization in Whole4) Dairy farming Prospectes and dependecny on farimg a livilihood5) Ploilicatial Incliation6) Milk prpduction enhance emnt Programmes7) Reliance on Milma for marketing Prodcues.8) Remunerative price9) Role of primary APCOS

2. The Reasons For Not Pouring Milk Fully To Milma Is Explored By Putting TheFolowing Reasons .

1) Non Receipt Of Payment In Time2) Milk Diverted Will Help Get Good Price3) Woprking Primary APCOS Noit Satisfactory4) Wighing Of Milk Not Trasparent5) Fat Readning Is Manupluated To Reduce Milk Value

3. Farmers Rating On The Production Enhancement Programmes

1) Artificail Insemination2) Feed3) Vetrinary Service4) Fodder5) Personnel Accident Insraucne6) Calf Adoption7) Free Feed & Cattle Insurance8) Merit Scholership & Awards9) Prodction Incentive10) Interest Free Loan

127 | P a g e


6.01. Variable Analaysis–For Testing Satisfaction Level Of Farmers:_

6.01.1. Acceptance of Milma management

The Management Style of Milma is acknowledged as acceptable to

52% of the farmers while 23 % disagreed. Balance of 26% found reluctant to express

their opinion. Out of the satisfied lot 22 % stogly support the mangeemnt style . The

percentage score of 52 % of favourables is substaiated by the e Mean score value of 3.43

thsat indiate a satisfactory level of maangement. But the score lie below 3.50 and that

indicate there is a need for improvement.

Table 75

Figure 40

DATA TABLE Mean Score

Variable Tested FullyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree FullyDisagree

%Total

SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Acceptance of Management of Milma 400 22.00 29.75 25.50 14.50 8.25 100 1371 3.43

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Acceptance of Management of Milma

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

128 | P a g e


6.01.2. Public relation & Communication

Public Relation and Communication of milma officials with farmers is found

to be very weak point of milma. 59 % of the farmers registered their unhappiness with the

distance kept by officials in listening to their grievances. Of the unhappy lot of 59 %, 36 %

have strongly registered their dissatisfaction. Only 32 % expressed satisfaction and 9.50% are

not sure of their stand.

The mean score of 2.51 strongly supports the percentage value and

indicate below average performance of Public Relation & Communication functions.

Table 76

Figure 41




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Public Relation & Communication 200 13.50 18.00 9.50 23.50 35.50 100 501 2.51

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

Public Relation & Communication

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

129 | P a g e


6.01.3. Acceptance of the Organization

Despite the strong reservation on the management style of milma, 60

% of the farmers have expressed their acceptance of milma as an organization of their own.

Only 21 % expressed their doubt about claiming ownership of milma. 19 % took a middle

position indicating doubt about their stake in the organization. Even though 60 % are voted in

favour, it is a matter of worry that 40 % are still not taking an organization of their own in to

confidence .

Even in the 60% of satisfied lot 33 % are not strong supporters of the

organization. Therefore, except a 27 % of strong believers the rest of the farmers are to be

taken in to confidence by milma to do justice its co-operative label.

The Mean Score of 3.55 shows an above average acceptance by

member farmers.

Table 77

Figure 42




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Acceptance of Organization 200 27.00 33.00 19.00 9.50 11.50 100 709 3.55

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Acceptance of Organization

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

130 | P a g e


6.01.4. Dairy Farming Prospects & Dependency As A Livelihood

Even though demographic data indicated a concentration of farmer’s

lot in the age category of 55 years and above, a good number of farmers believe that their

children will follow their footsteps and will continue dairy farming. Also the majority of

farmers are depending the industry for their livelihood. This segment of farmers will come

around a handsome 72 %. The mean score value is 39.93 and is a strong support for the

percentage score arrived.

Table 78

Figure 43




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Dairy Farming Prospects & Dependencyas Livelihood

200 48.50 23.50 9.00 10.00 9.00 100 785 3.93

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.00

Dairy Farming Prospects & Dependency asLivelihood

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

131 | P a g e


6.01.5. Milk production Enhancement Programmes (MPEP’s)

This variable is analyzed in two sessions. A detailed discussion is

followed under the Sub Head 6.03. . In this session only an initial test is done to assess

the level of general agreement to the assistance provided by milma for milk production

enhancement. While 40 % agreed to the usefulness of the programmes, 34.50% farmers

disagreed to it. But a group of 25.50% expressed their ignorance of the production

enhancement support provided by milma. This indicates a good amount of in efficiency in

implementing the Procurement & Input programmes.

A mean score of 3.06 clearly underline lack of effective implementation of

MPEP’s of Milma.

Table 79

Figure 44




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Milk Production EnhancementProgrammes

200 15.50 24.50 25.50 19.50 15.00 100 612 3.06

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Milk Production EnhancementProgrammes

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

132 | P a g e


6.01.6. Farmers’ Reliance on Milma

Proving the belief in Milma, 48 % farmers expressed their reliance on

milma for marketing their produces. Only 34.50% are confident of going ahead with dairy

farming even without milma. A helpless 17.50% of farmers are also there, seeking the

assurance of milma in providing them market for their produces. Therefore percentage score

on this variable can be interpreted in a different manner. Milma has a 48 % of dependent

farmers to be maintained and another 17.50 % who shy away lacking confidence.

The mean score of 3.17 support the % score of 48

Table 80

Figure 45




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Reliance on Milma for MarketingProduces

600 21.67 26.17 17.67 16.50 18.00 100 1902 3.17

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Reliance on Milma for MarketingProduces

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

133 | P a g e


6.01.7. Remunerative Price:-

Measurement of the success of milma in providing

remunerative price to its member farmers is one of the core objectives of this study. Data on

this variable is analyzed in two ways. Questionnaire survey

1) Cost Analysis method using Cost Factors , Milk value and Production Yield

2) Likert’s Scale Attitude Measurement method.

In the first method, the loss or gain of farmer is analyzed for a given milk

value and pouring strategy. The result showed that the current milk value of milma is not

beneficial to farmers. On the other hand the pouring strategy of farmers is not beneficial to

milma either. With the current pattern of pooling milk by farmers among various parties,

Milma gets only 40% share of the whole production (or 45 % of the Surplus produce).

Table 81

A farmer, who pours his entire surplus to milma, will sustain a loss of

Rs. 6.75 per liter. Even a milk value level not less than 35/- and will help the farmer make a

nominal gain of Rs.1/- Per liter. Only a mixed pouring strategy with milk value payment at

Rs35/- can help the farmer gain a minimum of Rs.3/- per Liter.

The above outcome showing an insufficiency in the milk value currently

offered by milma , is substantiated with the result of percentage analysis and Mean score

value or Likert’s Scores.

Case # Price Status Pouring Strategy Gain/Loss Amount

1 Current Rate Rs.27/- Pour Milma Fully Loss Rs.6.75

2 Current Rate Rs.27/- Mixed Pouring Loss Rs.3.18

3 Expected Rate Rs.35/-Pour Milma Fully Gain Rs.1.09

4 Expected Rate Rs.35/-Mixed Pouring Gain Rs.3.31

134 | P a g e


The percentage analysis shows that 50% of the farmers are not satisfied with

the current rate. Only 37 % is expressed satisfaction on the prevailing rate. Another 13% is

confused over the price issue. Thus only 37 % can be located as satisfied lot of farmers with

the current milk vale payment rate of milma. The remaining 63% is either dissatisfied or

confused.

The above scenario is very well corroborated with a mean score 2.67, which

lies below the average level.

Table 82

Figure 46




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Remunerative Price 400 13.50 23.00 13.25 17.50 32.75 100 1068 2.67

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

Remunerative Price

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

135 | P a g e


6.01.8. Role of Primary APCOS

Primary APCOS are an inevitable part of milma and they are the microlevel constituent element of the organization enjoying direct participation of farmers. Anyflaw in the management at this level may be attributed to the whole of milma. Therefore asthe part of assessing satisfaction level of farmers on performance of milma, an assessment ofrole of Primary Milk Societies are also done as it is in this level a farmer continually interactswith the system.

This study result shows that 51 % of the farmers are keeping a highesteem on their milk society. Only 24 % expressly disagreed with the role of APCOS inhelping the farmers. Another 25% are in the gray area about the APCOS. In a highlypolitically stimulated environment in Kerala, this lot could be interpreted as those who do notwish to disturb the lake .

Table 83

Figure 47




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Role of Primary APCOS 200 24.00 27.00 25.00 14.00 10.00 100 682 3.41

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Role of Primary APCOS

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

136 | P a g e


6.01.9. Overall rating of Performance of Milma

The sum Score of 3.15, of all the individual Likert’s Score arrived foreach variables, indicate that the overall performance level of milma is on an average level.Only 46% is acknowledging in favour of milma. The remaining 54 % is either dissatisfied ornot sure. A detailed score is as shown in Table ().

Table 84

Figure 48




%Total SUM ∑ X/ n

∑ X

Over All Acceptance Rating 2500 21.32 25.04 19.32 15.76 18.56 100 7,870 3.15

LIKERT'SSCALEPOINTS

PERCENTAGE SCORE

n

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Over All Rating

Fully Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Fully Disagree

137 | P a g e


Table 85

Variable TestedFullyAgree

Agree Neutral DisagreeFully

DisagreeMeanScore

Q10 ]mÂkwLw`cWkanXn bYmÀ°IÀjIsc {]Xn\n[m\w sN¿p¶p 28.00 30.00 17.00 17.00 8.00 3.53Q11 klIcW{]Øm\amb anÂabpsS {]hÀ¯\w Xr]vXnIcamWv 12.00 35.00 26.00 18.00 9.00 3.23Q13 ]mÂ kwL§Ä P\m[n]XrcoXnbnÂ BWv {]hÀ¯n¡p¶Xv 26.00 26.00 33.00 6.00 9.00 3.54Q23 anÂa £ocIÀjIÀ¡v tZmjIcamb Hcp CS\ne¡mc\mWv 22.00 28.00 26.00 17.00 7.00 3.41

Acceptance of Management of Milma 22.00 29.75 25.50 14.50 8.25 3.43

Q07 anÂa DtZymKØcpambn t\cn«v \nc´c k_À¡w ]peÀ¯p¶p 10.00 15.00 12.00 29.00 34.00 2.38Q08 anÂa DtZymKØsc t\cn«v _Ôs¸Sm³ IgnbmdnÃ 17.00 21.00 7.00 18.00 37.00 2.63

Public Relation & Communication 13.50 18.00 9.50 23.50 35.50 2.51

Q16 tIcfw IWnIpWcp¶ \·Xs¶ BWv anÂa 30.00 35.00 23.00 8.00 4.00 3.79Q17 anÂabpsS ]mepw ]mepXv]¶§fpw Rm³hm§n D]tbmKn¡mdpv 24.00 31.00 15.00 11.00 19.00 3.30

Acceptance of Organization 27.00 33.00 19.00 9.50 11.50 3.55

Q14 £ocIrjn am{XamWv Fsâ GIhcpam\amÀ¤w 59.00 21.00 5.00 10.00 5.00 4.19Q15 Fsâ a¡Ä¡v £ocIrjnbnÂ Gsd XmXv]crw Dv 38.00 26.00 13.00 10.00 13.00 3.66

Dairy Farming Prospects & Dependency as Livelihood 48.50 23.50 9.00 10.00 9.00 3.93

Q25 Fsâ cmjv{Sobhnizmk§Ä taÂ A`n{]mb§sf kzm[o\n¨n«pv 4.00 6.00 46.00 14.00 30.00 2.40Political Inclination 4.00 6.00 46.00 14.00 30.00 2.40

Q04 anÂa F\n¡v I¶pImenIrjn¡pÅ FÃmklmbhpw \ÂIp¶p 13.00 23.00 20.00 27.00 17.00 2.88Q06 £ocIÀjIs\ klmbn¡m³ anÂa Bhirambh sN¿p¶pv 18.00 26.00 31.00 12.00 13.00 3.24

Milk Production Enhancement Programmes 15.50 24.50 25.50 19.50 15.00 3.06

Q01 anÂa DÅXn\memWv Rm³ £ocIÀjI³ BbXv 44.00 29.00 9.00 10.00 8.00 3.91Q02 anÂa CÃ F¦nepw Rm³ £ocIÀjI³ BbnXpScpw 17.00 24.00 20.00 23.00 16.00 3.03Q05 F\n¡v ]mÂhnÂ]]\bv¡v anÂasb IqSmsX aäv amc¤Mfpw Dv 17.00 24.00 23.00 20.00 16.00 3.06Q12 IpSpXÂ ]mÂkw`cWþkwkvIcWþhn]W\ Øm]\§fmhiyamWv 6.00 6.00 18.00 29.00 41.00 2.07Q18 IÀjIcpsS ]men\v hn]Wn Is¯pIbmWv anÂabpsS e£yw 33.00 51.00 12.00 2.00 2.00 4.11Q21 anÂabnsÃ¦nepw DXv]mZn¸¡p¶ ]mÂ FÃmbnt¸mgpw hnägn¡mw 13.00 23.00 24.00 15.00 25.00 2.84

Reliance on Milma for Marketing Produces 21.67 26.17 17.67 16.50 18.00 3.17

Q03 anÂa Fsâ ]men\v \ymbamb \Ãhne e`ram¡p¶p 17.00 36.00 8.00 23.00 16.00 3.15Q19 P\§Ä¡v Ipdªhnebv¡v ]mÂ \ÂIm\pÅ _m[rX anÂabv¡nÃ 33.00 34.00 16.00 6.00 11.00 3.72Q20 B\p]mXnIhne e`n¨mÂ apgph³ ]mepw anÂabvIv \ÂIpw 2.00 1.00 10.00 20.00 67.00 1.51Q22 DXv]mZt\m]m[nIÄ¡v ]Icw \Ã ]mÂ hne am{Xw X¶mÂ aXn. 2.00 21.00 19.00 21.00 37.00 2.30

Remunerative Price 13.50 23.00 13.25 17.50 32.75 2.67

Q09 FÃmklmbhpw ]mÂkwLw hgnbmWv e`n¡p¶Xv 37.00 32.00 15.00 10.00 6.00 3.84Q24 {]mYanI£ockwL§fpsS {]hÀ¯\w IÀjIÀ¡v KpWIcaÃ. 11.00 22.00 35.00 18.00 14.00 2.98

Role of Primary APCOS 24.00 27.00 25.00 14.00 10.00 3.41

Over All Acceptance Rating 21.32 25.04 19.32 15.76 18.56 3.15

138 | P a g e


6.02. Reasons For Adopting A Mixed Pouring Policy By Farmers:-

The members of primary milk societies are bound by their by-law to

pour milk regularly to the society and a defaulted member is prevented many exercising his

rights in full as a member. A defaulted member can even be removed from the membership

of the society. In addition to this binding force, there are many lures that attract a farmer

member to pour milk to the society.

In the current milk value level, many farmers who divert a good share

of their surplus produce from milma profitably; pour a nominal portion of their milk in the

APCOS membership sake only. Even though the survey results shows only 25 % diversion,

a high level of diversion is to be suspected when the overall rating by farmers shows a 46 %

satisfaction level and a mean score of 3.15.

The above conclusion could be well established, on the basis of the

following Likert’s Scale score obtained in response to a separate questionnaire on reasons of

milk diversion .The result is tabulated as shown in table No ().

Table 86

The analysis result shows that the major reason for not pouring the entire

production to milma is the factor of low milk value only. The reasons stated for their

responses were rejected and the mean score obtained for reasons other than low milk value is

between 2.18 and 2.51, whereas the mean score obtained for the reason of low milk value is

3.71.

Milk ValuePayment Not

Prompt

Low MilkValue

Ineffectiveness of Primary

APCOS

Poor Accessto Collection

Centre

WeighmentDifference

Incorrect FatReading

Fully Agree 19.00 46.00 9.00 7.00 4.00 11.00 Agree 3.00 17.00 6.00 11.00 8.00 10.00

Neutral 24.00 13.00 36.00 21.00 31.00 32.00 Disagree 18.00 10.00 19.00 25.00 16.00 12.00

Fully Disagree 36.00 14.00 30.00 36.00 41.00 35.00 Mean Score 2.51 3.71 2.45 2.28 2.18 2.50

139 | P a g e


Likert score and accept –reject %level of the score for each stated reasons are

shown in the table () an Table ()

Table 87

Figure 49

Table 88

Milk ValuePayment Not

Prompt

Low MilkValue

Ineffectiveness of Primary

APCOS

Poor Accessto Collection

Centre

WeighmentDifference

Incorrect FatReading

Agree 22.00 63.00 15.00 18.00 12.00 21.00

Neutral 24.00 13.00 36.00 21.00 31.00 32.00

Disagree 54.00 24.00 49.00 61.00 57.00 47.00

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.00

Low Milk ValueFully Agree 46.00

Agree 17.00

Neutral 13.00

Disagree 10.00

Fully Disagree 14.00

Axis T

itle

Major Reason for Milk Diversion - Low Milk Value

1 ]qÀ®ambpw tbmPn¡n¶p

2 tbmPn¡n¶p

3 tbmPn¡pItbm hntbmPn¡Itbm sN¿p¶nÃ

4 hntbmPn¡n¶p

5 ]qÀ®ambpw hntbmPn¡n¶p

Statement

Number {]kvXmh\ Total 1 2 3 4 5 %Total ∑X ∑X/n

1 IrXyambn bYmkab¯v hne e`n¡mdnÃ 100 19.00 3.00 24.00 18.00 36.00 100 251 2.51

2 ]pdsa \ÂInbmÂ DbÀ¶ hne e`n¡pw 100 46.00 17.00 13.00 10.00 14.00 100 371 3.71

3 kwL¯nsâ {]hÀ¯\w Xr]vXnIcw AÃ 100 9.00 6.00 36.00 19.00 30.00 100 245 2.45

4 ]mÂ kab¯v kwL¯nÂ F¯n¡m\pÅ kuIcyanÃ 100 7.00 11.00 21.00 25.00 36.00 100 228 2.28

5 ]mÂ Af¶v FSp¡p¶XnÂ kpXmcrXbnÃ 100 4.00 8.00 31.00 16.00 41.00 100 218 2.18

6 sImgp¸v\p]mXw Ipd¨v ImWn¨v hneIpdbv¡mdpv 100 11.00 10.00 32.00 12.00 35.00 100 250 2.50

Sun Score 600 16.00 9.17 26.17 16.67 32.00 100 1563 2.61

n PERCENTAGE

LIKERT'S 5POINT

ANALYSIS -MEAN SCORE

VALUE

DXv]mZn¸n¡p¶ ]mÂ ]qÀ®ambn anÂabv¡v \ÂIm³ Ignbm¯Xn\v ImcWw

140 | P a g e


6.03. Analysis of the Milk production Enhancement Programmes(MPEP’s ) of Milma:-

Another variable that took in to consideration for measuring the level

of satisfaction of farmers is the effectiveness of Milk Production Enhancement programme

otherwise known as MPEP’s. The MPEP’s are implementing under the supervision of

Procurement & Input Department of Milma. The efficiency of these programmes can be

very well measured by assessing the satisfaction level of the beneficiary farmers.

In this study the level of satisfaction of farmer on MPEP Benefits are

attempted to measure by obtaining the level of agreement of farmers on each individual

MPEP’s by naming one after another in order to respond in a Likert’s 5 point Scale

Measure.

The MPEP’s taken as Test Variables are as follows.

Artificial Insemination

Cattle Feed Supply

Veterinary Services

Other Assistance

Fodder

Personal Insurance

Calf Adoption

Cattle Insurance

Merit Scholarship

Production Incentive

Interest Free Loan

In the Likert’s Scale each of the above variables is presented as a

statement to be commented on. The response in a 5 Point scale is sought by giving the

following 5 choices to express their satisfaction Level.

141 | P a g e


1) Never Heard

2) Heard But Not Obtained

3) Obtained But Not Useful

4) Useful But Not Sufficient

5) Very Well Useful

The Percentage Score and Mean Score obtained for each item aretabulated as shown in table ()

Table 89

Based on the above scores each variable are analyzed and theresults and observations are presented and interpreted as follows.

ArtificialInsemination

Cattle FeedVeterinety

ServiceOther

AssistanceFodder

PersonalInsurance

CalfAdoption

CattleInsurance

MeritScholership

ProductionIncentive

Interest FreeLoan

Never Heard 38.00 17.00 21.00 40.00 29.00 39.00 35.00 26.00 38.00 25.00 42.00

Heard But Not Obtained 24.00 34.00 29.00 16.00 37.00 31.00 23.00 35.00 24.00 10.00 35.00

Obtained But Not Usefull 14.00 15.00 22.00 31.50 16.00 16.00 20.00 22.00 20.00 19.00 8.00

Useful But Not Sufficent 13.00 28.00 16.00 5.00 11.00 8.00 10.00 6.00 9.00 25.00 5.00

Very Well Usefull 11.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 7.00 6.00 12.00 11.00 9.00 21.00 10.00

Mean Score 3.65 3.28 3.31 3.76 3.70 3.89 3.59 3.59 3.73 2.93 3.94

142 | P a g e


6.03.a Analysis & Interpretation of Data on Test Variablesin relation to MPEP’s:-

1) Production Incentive:-

Table 90

The Production Incentive programme or Bonus as it is popularly known

among farmers in is rated as satisfied. 25 % never heard of the programme and 10 are

neither aware of the same but nor benefited. 46% are responded as useful.

Figure 50

In Put Programme (MPEP) VeryWell

Usefull

UsefulBut NotSufficent

ObtainedBut NotUsefull

HeardBut NotObtained

NeverHeard

MeanScore

1 Production Incentive 21.00 25.00 19.00 10.00 25.00 3.07

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Production IncentiveNever Heard 25.00Heard But Not Obtained 10.00Obtained But Not Usefull 19.00Useful But Not Sufficent 25.00Very Well Usefull 21.00Mean Score 3.07

Perc

enta

ge S

core

143 | P a g e


2) Cattle Feed & Fodder Supply

Table 91

The Fodder Supply programme is rated very poor as 17% farmers are not

heard of the programme, 34% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service.

15% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 94 % of the

farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 6% of the farmers are found

benefited from the programme.

Figure 51


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

2 Cattle Feed & Fodder Supply 6.00 28.00 15.00 34.00 17.00 2.72

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Cattle Feed & Fodder SupplyNever Heard 17.00Heard But Not Obtained 34.00Obtained But Not Usefull 15.00Useful But Not Sufficent 28.00Very Well Usefull 6.00Mean Score 2.72

Perc

enta

ge S

core

144 | P a g e


3) Veterinary Service

Table 92

The Veterinary Service programme is rated poor as 21% farmers are not heard

of the programme, 29% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service. 22%

of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 72% of the farmers is

not benefited from the programme. Only 28% of the farmers are found benefited from

the programme.

Figure 52


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

3 Decentralised Veterinety Service 12.00 16.00 22.00 29.00 21.00 2.69

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.00

Decentralised Veterinety ServiceNever Heard 21.00Heard But Not Obtained 29.00Obtained But Not Usefull 22.00Useful But Not Sufficent 16.00Very Well Usefull 12.00Mean Score 2.69

Perc

enta

ge S

core

145 | P a g e


4) Calf Adoption

Table 93

The Calf Adoption programme is rated poor as 35% farmers are not

heard of the programme, 23% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the

service. 20% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 78%

of the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 22% of the farmers are

found benefited from the programme.

Figure 53


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

4 Calf Adoption 12.00 10.00 20.00 23.00 35.00 2.41

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Calf AdoptionNever Heard 35.00Heard But Not Obtained 23.00Obtained But Not Usefull 20.00Useful But Not Sufficent 10.00Very Well Usefull 12.00Mean Score 2.41

Perc

enta

ge S

core

146 | P a g e


5) Free Cattle Insurance & Feed

Table 94

The Free Cattle feed & Cattle Insurance programme is rated poor as

26% farmers are not heard of the programme, 35% of farmers are heard of it but

never obtained the service. 22% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful.

The total of 66% of the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 18% of

the farmers are found benefited from the programme.

Figure 54


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

5 Free Insurance & Feed 11.00 6.00 22.00 35.00 26.00 2.41

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Free Insurance & FeedNever Heard 26.00Heard But Not Obtained 35.00Obtained But Not Usefull 22.00Useful But Not Sufficent 6.00Very Well Usefull 11.00Mean Score 2.41

Perc

enta

ge S

core

147 | P a g e


6) Artificial Insemination

Table 95

The artificial insemination programme is rated poor as 38 % farmers

are not heard of the programme, 24% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the

service. 14% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 76% of

the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 24% of the farmers are found


Figure 55


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

6 Artificial Insemination 11.00 13.00 14.00 24.00 38.00 2.35

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Artificial InseminationNever Heard 38.00Heard But Not Obtained 24.00Obtained But Not Usefull 14.00Useful But Not Sufficent 13.00Very Well Usefull 11.00Mean Score 2.35

Perc

enta

ge S

core

148 | P a g e


7) Cattle Fodder Cultivation

Table 96

The Cattle fodder cultivation programme is rated poor as 29 % farmers

are not heard of the programme, 37% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the

service. 16% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 82% of

the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 18% of the farmers are found


Figure 56


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

7 Cattle Fodder Cultivation 7.00 11.00 16.00 37.00 29.00 2.30

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Cattle Fodder CultivationNever Heard 29.00Heard But Not Obtained 37.00Obtained But Not Usefull 16.00Useful But Not Sufficent 11.00Very Well Usefull 7.00Mean Score 2.30

Perc

enta

ge S

core

149 | P a g e


8) Merit Scholarships & Awards

Table 97

The Merit Award and Education Scholarship programme is rated poor

as 38% farmers are not heard of the programme, 24% of farmers are heard of it but




Figure 57


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

8 Merit Scholership 9.00 9.00 20.00 24.00 38.00 2.27

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Merit ScholershipNever Heard 38.00Heard But Not Obtained 24.00Obtained But Not Usefull 20.00Useful But Not Sufficent 9.00Very Well Usefull 9.00Mean Score 2.27

Perc

enta

ge S

core

150 | P a g e


9) Gosureksha & Gosamwarthini Campaign

Table 98

The Gosureksha & Gosamwarthini Campaign programme is

rated poor as 37% farmers are not heard of the programme, 22% of farmers

are heard of it but never obtained the service. 28% of farmers obtained the service

and found not useful. The total of 87% of the farmers is not benefited from the

programme. Only 13% of the farmers are found benefited from the

programme.

Figure 58


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

9GOSUREKSHA & GOSAMWARDHINICampaign

9.00 4.00 28.00 22.00 37.00 2.26

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

GOSUREKSHA & GOSAMWARDHINICampaign

Never Heard 37.00Heard But Not Obtained 22.00Obtained But Not Usefull 28.00Useful But Not Sufficent 4.00Very Well Usefull 9.00Mean Score 2.26

Perc

enta

ge S

core

151 | P a g e


10) Personal Accident Insurance

Table 99

The Personal Accident Insurance claim programme is rated very poor

as 43% farmers are not heard of the programme, 10% of farmers are heard of it but




Figure 59


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

10 Farmers' Personal Insurance 6.00 6.00 35.00 10.00 43.00 2.22

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00

Farmers' Personal InsuranceNever Heard 43.00Heard But Not Obtained 10.00Obtained But Not Usefull 35.00Useful But Not Sufficent 6.00Very Well Usefull 6.00Mean Score 2.22

Perc

enta

ge S

core

152 | P a g e


11) Interest Free Loan Using Revolving Fund

Table 100

The Interest free Loan programme implemented through creating a

revolving fund in the primary APCOS is rated very poor as 39% farmers are not heard


of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 86% of the farmers is

not benefited from the programme. Only 14% of the farmers are found benefited from

the programme.

Figure 60


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

11 Interest Free Loan 6.00 8.00 16.00 31.00 39.00 2.11

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.00

Interest Free LoanNever Heard 39.00Heard But Not Obtained 31.00Obtained But Not Usefull 16.00Useful But Not Sufficent 8.00Very Well Usefull 6.00Mean Score 2.11

Perc

enta

ge S

core

153 | P a g e


12) Cattle Insurance

Table 101

The Cattle Insurance programme is rated poor as 42% farmers are not heard


of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 85% of the farmers

is not benefited from the programme. Only 15% of the farmers are found benefited

from the programme.

Figure 61


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

12 Cattle Insurance 10.00 5.00 8.00 35.00 42.00 2.06

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00

Cattle InsuranceNever Heard 42.00Heard But Not Obtained 35.00Obtained But Not Usefull 8.00Useful But Not Sufficent 5.00Very Well Usefull 10.00Mean Score 2.06

Perc

enta

ge S

core

154 | P a g e


6.03.b Overall Rating of MPEP’s of Milma:_

The rating on individual items as per table () , are summarized as shown in

the Table () below. Except the Milk Bonus programme , no Procuremtn& Input

Programmes implemented under the MPEP’s could win the confidence of farmers and that it

self expalins the low pouring share of milma and a discontent lot of farmers.

Table 102

Figure 62

The MPEP‘s of milma in whole can be analyzed as follows.

Of the total respondent farmers, 33 % farmers replied that they

never hear of the MPEP’s. 26 % of the farmers are heard of the programme but never

benefited from it. 20 % of farmers availed the facilities and benefits but found not useful.

Thus the total discontented lot becomes 76 %. , that is more than 2/3rd of the farmers. Only

10 % of the farmers are found happy with the MPEP‘s of milma.


Usefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

Overall Rating 10.00 11.75 19.58 26.17 32.50 2.41

-5.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.00

Overall Rating of MPEP'sNever Heard 32.50Heard But Not Obtained 26.17Obtained But Not Usefull 19.58Useful But Not Sufficent 17.75Very Well Usefull 10.00

Perc

enta

ge S

core

Overall MPEP Rating

155 | P a g e


Table 103

Table 104

IÀjIÀ¡mbn anÂa \ÂInhcp¶ Xmsg ]dbp¶ ]²XnIsfIpdn¨v

1 AdnhnÃ

2 Adnhpv ]s£ {]tbmP\w e`n¡p¶nÃ

3 {]tbmP\w e`n¡p¶p ]s£ KpWIcw AÃ

4 hfsc KpWIcw BWv ]s£ ]qÀ®ambpw e`n¡p¶nÃ

5 ]qÀ®ambpw {]tbmP\Icw BWv

Statement

Number {]kvXmh\ 1 2 3 4 5 %Total MeanScore

11 kwL§Ä hgnbpÅ DXv]mZI C³skâohv 21.00 25.00 19.00 10.00 25.00 100 3.07

2 ]pÃv, ImenXoähnXcWw 6.00 28.00 15.00 34.00 17.00 100 2.72

3 hntI{µnIrX/{]mYanI arKNnInÕm kzIcrw 12.00 16.00 22.00 29.00 21.00 100 2.69

8 I¶pIp«n/s]¬InSmcn Zs¯Sp¡Â 12.00 10.00 20.00 23.00 35.00 100 2.41

9 Idh]ip¡Ä¡v kzP\y Xoä, C³jzd³kv ]²Xn 11.00 6.00 22.00 35.00 26.00 100 2.41

1 Ir{Xna _oP[m\]²Xn 11.00 13.00 14.00 24.00 38.00 100 2.35

6 Xoä]pÂ Irjn hnIk\w 7.00 11.00 16.00 37.00 29.00 100 2.30

10 a¡Ä¡pÅ ]T\klmbw/ kvtImfÀjn¸v / AhmÀUv 9.00 9.00 20.00 24.00 38.00 100 2.27

5 tKmkpc£m]²Xn 9.00 4.00 28.00 22.00 37.00 100 2.26

4 tKmkwh²n\n Iymw]pIÄ 6.00 6.00 35.00 10.00 43.00 100 2.22

7 IÀjIÀ¡pÅ A]IS C³jzd³kv ]²Xn 6.00 8.00 16.00 31.00 39.00 100 2.11

12 ]ip¡sfhm§p¶Xn\pÅ ]eniclnX hmbv]m 10.00 5.00 8.00 35.00 42.00 100 2.06

10.00 11.75 19.58 26.17 32.50 100 2.41

Farmers Survey- Tabulation Sheet

PERCENTAGE SCORE LIKERT'S5 POINT

All 5 Response sought is negative hence the score arereversed for analysis pupose.

In Put Programme (MPEP) VeryWellUsefull




NeverHeard

MeanScore

1 Production Incentive 21.00 25.00 19.00 10.00 25.00 3.072 Cattle Feed & Fodder Supply 6.00 28.00 15.00 34.00 17.00 2.723 Decentralised Veterinety Service 12.00 16.00 22.00 29.00 21.00 2.694 Calf Adoption 12.00 10.00 20.00 23.00 35.00 2.415 Free Insurance & Feed 11.00 6.00 22.00 35.00 26.00 2.416 Artificial Insemination 11.00 13.00 14.00 24.00 38.00 2.357 Cattle Fodder Cultivation 7.00 11.00 16.00 37.00 29.00 2.308 Merit Scholership 9.00 9.00 20.00 24.00 38.00 2.279 GOSUREKSHA & GOSAMWARDHINI Campaign 9.00 4.00 28.00 22.00 37.00 2.2610 Farmers' Personal Insurance 6.00 6.00 35.00 10.00 43.00 2.2211 Interest Free Loan 6.00 8.00 16.00 31.00 39.00 2.1112 Cattle Insurance 10.00 5.00 8.00 35.00 42.00 2.06

Overall Rating 10.00 11.75 19.58 26.17 32.50 2.41

156 | P a g e


Chapter 5

X11. ETOP, OCP & SAP Analysis

157 | P a g e


XII. ETOP ,OCP & SAP Analysis

XII.1. ETOPTable 105

EnvironmentalSector

Natureof

Impact Impact on Sector

↑→ ↓

Market ↑The current market share of milma is 50 % of the totaland the fragmented other half is an opportunity ratherthan a threat. Value addition is Poor. With a strongBrand Loyalty ,can go high in value creation.

Suppliers ↓The depleting Local Milk sources are a major threat.Within the coming 10 years current generation offarmers may exhaust and in the new generation morethan 50% is women farmers. Unless milma formulatetheir procurement strategy wisely for the next 20 yearsor above , availability of milk will be a major threat

Technology ↓The existing technology is the conventional chilling &Pasteurization process that can help make maximum oneday shelf life for milk. If milma wait to be a lateadaptor, a rival can easily occupy the space beforemilma could.

Economy → Since the market spread is within in kerala, any nationalor global economic volatility is no immediate threat formilma.

Regulatory ↓The Food safety Act is stipulating a new array ofstandards for food and food products. Milma canconvert this threat in to an opportunity by initiating thereforms.

Political ↓ In policy formulation process the co-operative outfit,make milma easily amenable to political pressure.

Socio- Cultural → No Major Impacts

International → No Major Impacts

158 | P a g e


XII.2. OCP Analysis

Table 106

XII.3. SAP Analysis

Table 107

Organizational Capability FactorsWeakness Normal Strength

(-)5 0 (+)5Marketing - 0 -Finance - 0 -Human Resources -5 - -Operation - 0 -Information -5 - -General Management - 0 -

-10 0 -

OrganizationalCapabilityFactors

Nature OfImpact

CompetitiveStrengths Or Weaknesses

Marketing → Passive marketing. Lack PromotionalStrategy. Logistics is the Major activity.

Finance ↓ Weakened Accounting Department. Costingis Alien. Poor user quality in informationSystem.

HumanResources ↓ Poor HRD – Highly dissatisfied worker lot.

Line and Staff divide is More. Disparity inPay structure. Poor Work Culture.

Operation → Gradual Technology Upgrading. SlowImplementation phase. Later Adopter

Information ↓ No Progress Beyond TPS level. Poor userquality - Lack effective reporting System

GeneralManagement ↓ Documentation Quality poor – lack effective

inter departmental Co-ordination -

159 | P a g e


Chapter – 6

XIII. Findings , Conclusions &Suggestions

160 | P a g e


XIII. Findings

On analyzing and interpreting the data collected in this study, the following

findings are arrived. Since the Analysis of variables pertaining to the customer and farmers

are done separately, the findings are also presented in parts. Thus the findings are grouped in

to three parts, namely;

Part –I General Findings On

- Customer Features

- Milk Market

- Dairy Farmer- Supplier Features

- Milk Procurement – Features

Part –II Findings on Level of Customer Satisfaction

Part –III Findings on Level of Member –Farmer Satisfaction

161 | P a g e


Part 1 - General Findings:-

A. Customer Features:-

1. The average family size of customer group is 4.20 members a family and the

45.30% of the families are 4 of members. A family on an average constituted of 71

% of gown up and 29 % children.

2. Total market share of milma milk is 50.31 %. In urban area 70 % of milk needs is

met my milma and in the rural areas it is 30 %.

3. Out of total milk consumption in the district, 59 % is consumed for Tea or Coffee

making and 29% is taken a Food Drink and the 12 % for other purposes.

4. Of the total Milma Milk Consumed, 56% of milk is consumed for tea making and

only 27.50 % is taken as a Food Drink. 16.77 % of milma milk is being consumed

for other purposes.

5. Average milk consumption per person is 330 ml. The consumption per person in

Rural areas is 352 ml and in urban areas 314ml.

B. Milk Market :-

1. The total population in the district is 33.07 Lakhs. With the average family size of

4.02 members, there will be 8.22 Lakhs Families. On an average of per person

consumption of 330ml a day, the total demand a day is estimated to be 10.91 Lakhs

Liters.

2. As per this study the total estimated market share of milma is 51.41Estimated

Consumption per person is of the total household demand of milk in

Thiruvananthapuram district, 50.31 % of the demand is met by milma. Among the

balance of players only the Local Farmers enjoys a double figure (17.18 %) market

share. The rest of the players all together constitute 19.56 % and the remaining

11.96 % of the market share is an inconsistent segment randomly shared by all

players.

162 | P a g e


3. Of the total milk demand in the urban areas, milma meets 70%. Local farmers who

caters 17% of the demand is the only source that comes next to milma with a

double digit market share

4. Of the total milk demand in the rural areas milma meets only 30%. Local farmers

cater 19% of the demand, while private Dairies meet12 % of the demand. 19.38 % is

jointly met by Cycle Vendors, Govt farms and other dairies. 7% of the rural needs

are met by own farming.

5. In Rural 20 % of the demand is met from a mixed lot of sources. The customers in

this segment resort to the any available milk source.

C. Dairy Farmer Features

1. The average age of farmers in 55 and average experience is 32 Years.

2. 47 % of the Farmers are 56 above old and 36 % is between the age of 45 and 55.

3. With the average life expectancy of 60 years in kerala, 47 % of the farmer lot will

be extinct by next 5 years and another 36 % within 10 years time from the current

lot only 17 % of the farmers will be left in the farms after 10 years...

4. The data analysis shows that 64 % of the farmers are confident of their children

having a flair for dairy farming.

5. As per official statistics as on 31.03.2009 , of Dairy development Department, Govt

of Kerala, on dairy farmers in kerala, the farmer population in the District is 67,000

Nos.

6. As per Annual report of TRCMPU Ltd for the period 2010.-2011, the total number

of Member farmer in the Union are 2.80 Lakhs and of which only 0.32 Lakhs are

pouring members. That makes the total pouring members to only 11.30% of the

members.

7. At the rate of only 11.30% of pouring members, of the total 0.67 Lakhs farmers in

Thiruvananthapuram District, an estimated 7600 farmers are pouring farmers. As

per Statistics available with TRCMPU Ltd, the active Pouring members are ……..

Nos.

163 | P a g e


8. An average farmer own 2.06 animals and produce 18.840 Liters of milk per day.

The yield of his animal is 9.15 Liters a day.

9. Out of the 9.150 Liters obtained a day per animal, the farmer family consumes 0.

990 liters and keep the remaining 8.160 liters per animal as disposable surplus for

procurement.

10. Since an average farmer owns 2.06 animals, the total disposable surplus per farmer a

day is arrived at 16.800 Liters.

D. Milk Procurement Statistics

1. Out of the total production 9.150 Liters .990 Liters (11 %) is consumed by farmer.

The remaining 8.155 Liters (89%) is available for disposal.

2. Out of the disposable surplus of 8.155 Liters of milk, 6.136 Liters (75.24%) are

poured in the Primary (APCOS) Milk Society as a Member and divert the remaining

2.019 liters (24.76%) to other parties.

3. Only 3.682 Liters per animal Out of the disposable surplus of 8.155 Liters per

animal could be procured by milma. . This comes to a mere 45 % of the disposable

surplus of the farmer. .

4. Per farmer disposable surplus a day is 16.800 liters. Therefore estimated total daily

disposable surplus for 7600 farmers in the district is 1.28 Lakhs Liters.

5. Out of the total per animal procurement of APCOS (6.140 Ltr), 3.700 Liters (60 %)

is sent to milma and 2.400 Liters (40%) per animal is locally sold by APCOS.

6. The Net per Animal effective procurement of milma is estimated as 40 % of the

Gross Production or 45% of the Disposable Surplus Milk or 60% of the APCOS

Procurement

7. Milma fails to procure on an average of 55% of the disposable surplus milk

available with its member farmer.

8. At the rate of 8.155 Liters (89% of Total production) of disposable surplus per

animal, the total disposable surplus milk per day is estimated to be 1.14 Lakhs liters.

9. The net effective average daily procurement by milma is estimated to be

164 | P a g e


10. Out of the total available surplus of 1.14 Lakhs Litres, milma procures on an

average 45%, i.e. 51, 300 Liters a day.

11. The average daily procurement by Thiruvananthapuram dairy as per Annual report

of TRCMPU Ltd for the periods 2009-2010 is 79845 Liters and for 2010-2011 is

63,699 Liters. It shows a downward trend of 20% fall.

12. Based on the above annual decline trend of 20 %, the projected procurement for

2011-2012 is 51,000 Liters.

13. The daily average estimated procurement for current period as arrived by this

study is 51,300 Liters a day

14. Milma fails to procure 55 % of the disposable surplus milk and it is estimated to be

to be 62, 700 Liters a day.

Part –II Findings on Level of Customer Satisfaction:-

1. On overall quality of milma milk, while 13.25 % of the respondents strongly agreed,

a mere satisfaction is registered by 34.70% taking total acceptance to 48 %.

2. Only 4.36% strongly disagreed to the quality of milma milk, while 22.82 % of the

respondents disagreed in a lesser level, thus taking the total dissatisfaction to 27 %.

3. One fourth of the respondents i.e. 25% took a neutral position taking the total of

those either oppose or abstain from supporting (or opposing) quality of milma milk

to 52%. This 50-50 customer satisfaction level is substantiated with a Likert’s mean

score of 3.30 which indicate a need for overall l quality improvement.

4. Customer satisfaction on quality aspect of milma milk when assessed for users only,

only 55 % expressed their agreement to milma quality while 24 % stood against and

21% took a neutral position.

5. There is no significance different in the opinion of users and Non Users of Milk

6. The quality of milma milk is registered a good score (3.79) in relation to its

superiority over other rival milk available in the market. Also regarding the Health

and safety aspect of the milk has scored a decent score of 3.60

165 | P a g e


7. The advantage on account of Market Upper hand over rivals and Health & safety

aspect, is got eclipsed by the negatives on account of image of reconstituted milk

and instances of frequent spoilage while boiling.

8. 49 % of the customers believe that milma milk get frequently spoiled and its is made

by way of reconstitution of milk powder.

9. Price of Milk milma is acceptable to 39 % of the customers and 27 % are not

seriously bothered of the of the price as they took a neutral stand. Only 34%

consider the price high.

10. Within the user segment, response to price issue is mixed with 42 % each casted for

and against with 16% abstain. Therefore price seems not a major issue.

11. Therefore there is evidence for difference of opinion among Milma Users & Non

Users on acceptance prevailing price of the milma milk.

12. . The chi square test results indicate that there is no significant divide among Urban

& Rural customers on price acceptance.

13. 54 % of customers are Milma Brand Loyal. The other segment jointly constitutes

29% of the switch over – ready customers and 17% of the users are in border line

casting neither allegiance nor aversion to milma.

14. There is an equal divide among milma users about availability of milma milk.

15. 85 % of the customers have good awareness on Milma milk variants.

16. There are only 34 % takers for value added milk to be consumed as food drink. 44

% disagreed with the proposal that include the 13% who registered their strong

reservation on the idea and 21 % of respondents stood neutral. The neutrals are a

significant lot as if milma could win them; the idea of value added milk will have 56

% takers. Among milma users there is an equal divide on accepting value added

food drink milk.

17. The satisfaction level of milma customers is only just above average. Only 57% of

the urban and 38% of the rural are satisfied over milma milk. Mean time 28% of

urban and 53 % of rural users are not in agreement on milma customer functions.

166 | P a g e


Part –III Findings on Level of Member –Farmer

Satisfaction

A. The Organization , Management & Dependency

1. Public Relation and Communication of milma officials with farmers is a critical

weakness of milma in building confidence and coordinating the supply chain. Only

32% expressed their happiness over having access over milma officials for

grievance se hearing and information flow.

2. The Management Style of Milma is acknowledged as acceptable to 52% of the

farmers while 23 % disagreed.

3. Despite the strong reservation on the management style of milma, 60 % of the

farmers have expressed their acceptance of milma as an organization of their own.

Only 21 % expressed their doubt about claiming ownership of milma

4. The Management Style of Milma is acknowledged as acceptable to 52% of the

farmers while 23 % disagreed

5. 26% of farmers found reluctant to express their opinion on Mnagement and the

organization. Out of the satisfied lot 22 % strongly support the mangeemnt style.

6. A majority of farmers that come around a handsome 72 %.are depending the dairy

farming for their livelihood.

7. Milma has a 48 % of dependent farmers to be maintained and another 17.50 % who

shy away lacking confidence.

8. When 48 % farmers expressed their reliance on milma for marketing their products,

only 34.50% are confident of going ahead with dairy farming even without milma.

9. A helpless 17.50% of farmers are also there, seeking the assurance of milma in

providing them market for their produces

10. This study result shows that 51 % of the farmers are keeping a high esteem on their

milk society. Only 24 % expressly disagreed with the role of apcos in helping the

farmers. Another 25% are in the gray area about the APCOS.

167 | P a g e


11. Among member farmers, only 46% is acknowledging in favour of milma. The

remaining 54 % is either dissatisfied or not sure of performance of milma.

B. Milk Value

1. The percentage analysis shows that 50% of the farmers are not satisfied with the

current rate.

2. Only 37 % is expressed satisfaction on the prevailing rate. Another 13% is confused

over the price issue. T

3. Hues only 37 % can be located as satisfied lot of farmers with the current milk vale

payment rate of milma. The remaining 63% is either dissatisfied or confused.

4. The analysis of research data shows that the major reason for not pouring the entire

production to milma is the factor of low milk value only.

5. The analysis result shows that the major reason for not pouring the entire production

to milma is the factor of low milk value only.

6. Very data result shows that the major reason for not pouring the entire production to

milma is the factor of low milk value only.

7. A farmer continuing a mixed pouring stategy and contune to obtain the prevailing

milk price from milma sustains a loss of Rs.3.18 per liter.

8. If he pour his entire milk production to milma at the prevailing rate of Rs.27/- per

Liter , his loss will go upto Rs.6.75 . and his additional loss on account of relying

milma entirely , will be Rs.3.57 per liter .

9. If farmer is allowed an expected price of milk at Rs.35/-, and opt to pour the

entire susplus milk to milma, he could make a surplus of Rs.1.09 per liter.

10. A Farmer if obtain his expected price and he go on continue his mixed pouring

stategy, he will be earing Rs. 3.31 Per liter.

11. In the current milk value level, many farmers who divert a good share of their

surplus produce from milma profitably; pour a nominal portion of their milk in the

APCOS membership sake only. Even though the survey results shows only 25 %

168 | P a g e


diversion, a high level of diversion is to be suspected when the overall rating by

farmers shows a 46 % satisfaction level

C. Production Enhancement Programmes :-

1. The Production Incentive programme or Bonus as it is popularly known among

farmers in is rated as satisfied. 25 % never heard of the programme and 10 are

neither aware of the same but nor benefited. 46% are responded as useful.

2. The Fodder Supply programme is rated very poor as 17% farmers are not heard of

the programme, 34% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service. 15%

of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 94 % of the



3. The Veterinary Service programme is rated poor as 21% farmers are not heard of the

programme, 29% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service. 22% of

farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 72% of the farmers is

not benefited from the programme. Only 28% of the farmers are found benefited

from the programme.

4. The Calf Adoption programme is rated poor as 35% farmers are not heard of the


farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 78% of the farmers

is not benefited from the programme. Only 22% of the farmers are found benefited

from the programme.

.

5. The Calf Adoption programme is rated poor as 35% farmers are not heard of the



169 | P a g e



from the programme.

6. The artificial insemination programme is rated poor as 38 % farmers are not heard of

the programme, 24% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service. 14%

of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 76% of the



7. The Cattle fodder cultivation programme is rated poor as 29 % farmers are not heard

of the programme, 37% of farmers are heard of it but never obtained the service.

16% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 82% of the



8. The Merit Award and Education Scholarship programme is rated poor as 38%

farmers are not heard of the programme, 24% of farmers are heard of it but never

obtained the service. 20% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The

total of 82% of the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 18% of the

farmers are found benefited from the programme.

9. The Gosureksha & Gosamwarthini Campaign programme is rated poor as 37%


obtained the service. 28% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful.

The total of 87% of the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 13%

of the farmers are found benefited from the programme.

10. The Personal Accident Insurance claim programme is rated very poor as 43%


obtained the service. 35% of farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The

total of 88% of the farmers is not benefited from the programme. Only 12% of


170 | P a g e


11. The Interest free Loan programme implemented through creating a revolving fund in

the primary APCOS is rated very poor as 39% farmers are not heard of the




from the programme.

12. The Cattle Insurance programme is rated poor as 42% farmers are not heard of the


farmers obtained the service and found not useful. The total of 85% of the farmers

is not benefited from the programme. Only 15% of the farmers are found


13. Of the total respondent farmers, 33 % farmers replied that they never hear of the

MPEP’s. 26 % of the farmers are heard of the programme but never benefited from

it. 20 % of farmers availed the facilities and benefits but found not useful. Thus the

total discontented lot becomes 76 %. , that is more than 2/3rd of the farmers. Only 10

% of the farmers are found happy with the MPEP‘s of milma.

14.15. 40 % of famers agreed to the to the usefulness of the programmes. 34.50%

farmers disagreed to it. A group of 25.50% expressed their ignorance of the

production enhancement support provided by milma. The Overall score indicate a

lack of commitment in implementing the Procurement & Input programmes.

171 | P a g e


XIV. Conclusions

This study aimed to examine the strategic Intent of Milma

in the prevailing environment, in relation to the business level strategy

implementation of Thiruvananthapuram dairy. The study is designed in such

way as to concentrate on two objectives as a measure of success of

implementation of business level strategy of Thiruvananthapuram dairy,

which is a SBU of TRCMPU Ltd.

The set objectives are to study the efficiency of milma in providing

remunerative price to its member farmers and providing good quality milk

to its customer at competitive price. The satisfaction level of farmers and

Customers are decided as the measure of efficiency

The satisfaction level of Customer s is measured mainly in terms of

the Quality, Price, Brand Loyalty, Market Access, Market Awareness and

Value Expectation on Milma Milk. The study shows that the level of

satisfaction of customer is just average. The statistical score indicate that

quantity and other product functions need improvement.

On the other side the level of satisfaction of farmers is very poor

and milma seems failed in working towards the prosperity of farmers.

Despite the dissatisfaction the farmers are keeping a high esteem on milma

as their organization and are highly relaying the industry for their

livelihood.

Therefore it’s time for milma to work towards evaluating its

Business strategies to re align it with the grand strategy. Milma has to take

172 | P a g e


an emergent strategic approach at operational level especially in marketing,

and operations.

Marketing function is in sole shrunk to Logistical aspect

only. Product Development and Promotion are to be made aggressive. The

whole of the value chain need to be maintained without break. Possibility

on Differential pricing for pure Milk and reconstituted milk need to be

explored. . The attribute of Reconstituted milk along with instances of

spoilage rate are the major obstacles to take leverage on the high level of

Brand Loyalty and quality acceptance.

Presentation is another area of concern. Quality is some

things to be felt and sensed. . It must make the Customer feel the quality

continuously.

Finance and Production departments must join hands to

ensure proper costing to arrive the optimal milk value level to take

advantage of economies of scale. Milma fails to procure 25 to 30 % of local

production that is being diverted over and above the APCOS sale.

With regard to the depleting dairy farmer lot, Milma has to

think one step ahead of time for filling the vacuum. The trend shows a

promising increase in number of women farmers in their 30’s. Women Co-

operatives can be well developed to meet this end.

173 | P a g e


XV. Suggestions

1.1 Suggestions to Improve Customer Satisfaction.

1. There is a mismatch between customer expectation and management

perception on the quality function of milma milk. Milk by nature is highly

perishable and time restrained in availability. Therefore the very basic value

creation expected from a Dairy Processor is Increased Shelf Life and Removal

of Time Constraints on availability. Milma seems lag in both. It time milma

has to find alternate technology to contain the issues of market access, instances

of spoilage.

2. There is no major issue on quality of milk. But the study revealed that there is

a perception among public that milma milk is not pure milk and it’s largely

prepared by reconstitution of milk Powder. This aspect need to be looked in to

by marketing and Production department joining with the Quality department.

3. Price of Milma Milk seems not a major issue with the customers. There is a

demand uncertainty and market is too large to cater by the current players.

Milma enjoys brand loyalty and customer response to value expectation is in

Win-Win stage. Therefore Milma can adopt a focused differentiation pricing

strategy and can increase the sales by introducing more product differentiation

and premium pricing.

4. Milk as a Food Drink is not seems popular among the Customers and there are

medical reasons assigned to it. Still 27% of Milma milk is consumed as a food

drink and 30% of the total marketed milk is consumed as food drink. Therefore

potential for milk being introduced as a pleasure food can be explored.

174 | P a g e


1.2 Suggestions to Improve Farmer Satisfaction.

1. The supply chain net work of milma lacks co-ordination both in terms of flow

of information and products/services. Another flaw is the conflicts of objectives

of partners. The farmer members of milma are a discontented partner of the

supply chain of milma. Milma, Apcos and farmers are aiming to implement

conflicting business objectives, which in total negating the strategic intent of

farmer’s prosperity. Therefore milma has to adopt a holistic approach in

streamlining the supply chain and the immediate step it can adopt is to win the

confidence of farmer through effective communication. To this end the field

staff has to be equipped with enough soft skills to translate farmers’

commitment on milma to pouring quantities.

2. Among variable cost factors on animal rearing cost, cost of cattle feed is the

major concern. The feed component seems highly critical in deciding the

profitability of farmers. Expect for Production Incentives, all other Milk

Production Enhancement Programmes are stand unattractive and in effective.

The fund applications on these programmes can be made focused for providing

cattle feed.

3. Under paid Milk Value is the sole reason for farmers to divert 25% of their

disposable surplus . Farmers’ lot has no other reasons for milk diversion.

Farmers’ expected milk value is Rs.35/- . Milma can work out the option of

allowing this expected milk value to lure the farmers to pour their entire

disposable surplus to milma.

175 | P a g e


XVII. Bibliography

# References

1Registered Bye Laws Of KCMMF Ltd

(As Amended Up To 12-10-2011)

2Registered Bye Laws Of TRCMPU Ltd

(As Amended Up To 31-08-2011)

3 25th Annual General Body Report Of TRCMPU Ltd -25.06.2011

4Study Report - Market Potential For Milma Curd At

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy By Sri S R Nagendran On 12/2010

5 Strategic Management & Business Policy By Azhar Kazmi

6 Proactive Procurement – Burt David & Modarres B

7Koontz, Harold, Weihrich, Heinz (2008), “Essentials

of Principles of Management” New Delhi: Tata Mc-Graw Hill.

8Kotler, Philip, and Keller, Kevin Lane (2009), “Marketing

Management”, New Delhi: Pearson Education.

9P Gopalakrishnan (2010) “Purchasing And Materials

Management”, New Delhi: Tata Mc-Graw Hill.

10Kothari C R, Research Methodology- Methods & Techniques,

New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, 2006

11

Business research , A Practical Guide for Undergraduates and

Post graduates students By Jill Hussey & Roger Hussey 10th

edition, 2006

176 | P a g e


XVIII. Appendix

# Description of Appended Document Page

1 Registration Certificate of TRCMPU Ltd 89

2 Location map of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy 90

3 Audited & Published Balance Sheet 2007-2008 91

4Audited & Published Trading & manufacturing Account -

2007-200892

5 Audited & Published Profit & Loss Account -2007-2008 93

177 | P a g e


1. Location map of Thiruvananthapuram Dairy

Towards Bye Pass Kovalam / VizhijamFrom Thampanoor /East Fort 4 KM

ThiruvananthapuramDairy Plant,Ambalathara

AMBALATHARATEMPLE

To Kaladi

Towards Railway/Bus Station

178 | P a g e


1. Audited & Published Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2010

2. Tentative Balance Sheet As on 31.03.2011

Amount As At31.03.2009

LiabilitiesAmount As At

31.03.2010 Amount As At

31.03.2009Assets


Rs. 1,00,46,038.00 NDDB Loan Rs. 84,44,574.00 Rs. 2,05,337.50 Cash In Hand 88,014.25

Rs. 2,17,75,633.91 NDDB Grant Rs. 2,17,75,633.91 Rs. 758.00 Stamps 835.00

Rs. 1,70,978.99 Capital Reserves Rs. 1,70,978.99 Rs. 46,66,216.97 Cash At Bank 69,95,634.13

Rs. 19,08,86,374.12 Reserves & Provisions Rs. 20,64,74,421.23 Rs. 15,97,00,852.79 Fixed Assets 18,52,06,196.27

Rs. 10,35,18,933.33 Inter Unit Transfer - Due By Rs. 1,68,50,674.29 Rs. 13,26,73,510.52 Inter Unit Transfer - Due To 2,91,12,243.76

Rs. 7,14,09,327.65 Adjusting Heads - Due By Rs. 4,91,11,226.32 Rs. 8,72,17,361.63 Adjusting Heads- Due To 9,52,39,677.44

Rs. 5,71,00,591.76 Undistributed Profit Rs. 5,71,00,591.76 Rs. 1,41,037.50 Deficit Stock 1,41,037.50

Rs. - Subsidy Rs. 1,98,000.00 Rs. 2,54,005.33 Damaged Stock 2,73,806.14

Rs. - Interest Provision Rs. 50,00,000.04 Rs. 6,38,259.47 Dead Stock 6,76,591.55

Rs. 3,69,94,334.66 Closing Stock 2,69,86,628.09

Rs. - NDDB Term Loan 20,910.00

Rs. - Net Profit Up to 31.03.2010 Rs. - Rs. 3,24,16,203.39 Net Loss Up to 31.03.2010 2,03,84,526.41

Rs. 45,49,07,877.76 Total Rs. 36,51,26,100.54 Rs. 45,49,07,877.76 Total Rs. 34,47,41,574.13

Sd/-Concurrent Auditor

Thiruvananthapuram Dairy ,Post Box No.4 Ambalathara, Poonthura P O , Thiruvananthapuram -695026A Unit of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Milk Producers' Union Ltd, Pattom

BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2010


Liabilities Amount As At 31.03.2011 Amount As At

31.03.2010Assets Amount As At 31.03.2011

Rs. 84,44,574.00 NDDB Loan Rs. 55,47,629.00 88,014.25 Cash In Hand Rs. 2,69,86,628.09

Rs. 2,17,75,633.91 NDDB Grant Rs. 2,17,75,633.91 835.00 Stamps Rs. 2,03,84,526.41

Rs. 1,70,978.99 Capital Reserves Rs. 1,70,978.99 69,95,634.13 Cash At Bank Rs. -

Rs. 20,64,74,421.23 Reserves & Provisions Rs. 21,89,69,709.60 18,52,06,196.27 Fixed Assets Rs. -

Rs. 1,68,50,674.29 Inter Unit Transfer - Due By Rs. 2,70,13,675.21 2,91,12,243.76 Inter Unit Transfer - Due To Rs. -

Rs. 4,91,11,226.32 Adjusting Heads - Due By Rs. 4,49,49,206.87 9,52,39,677.44 Adjusting Heads- Due To Rs. 1,24,95,288.37

Rs. 5,71,00,591.76 Undistributed Profit Rs. 5,71,00,591.76 1,41,037.50 Deficit Stock Rs. 4,75,72,556.46

Rs. 1,98,000.00 Subsidy Rs. 1,98,000.00 2,73,806.14 Damaged Stock Rs. 3,66,70,154.60

Rs. 50,00,000.04 Interest Provision Rs. 3,21,41,504.17 6,76,591.55 Dead Stock Rs. 9,17,524.00

20,910.00 NDDB Term Loan Rs. -

2,69,86,628.09 Closing Stock Rs. 3,46,79,296.77

Rs. - Net Profit Up to 31.03.2011 Rs. - 2,03,84,526.41 Net Loss Up to 31.03.2011 Rs. 9,94,73,110.68

Rs. 36,51,26,100.54 Rs. 40,78,66,929.51 36,51,26,100.54 27,91,79,085.38


BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2011

179 | P a g e


3. Audited Trading & Manufacturing Account 2009-2010

4. Audited Profit & Loss Account 2009-2010

A/c Code Debit Particulars

Sch

edul

e N

o.

Amount A/c Code Credit Particulars

Sch

edul

e N

o.

Amount

Opening Stock as at 01.04.2009 Rs. 3,69,94,334.66 Sales Rs. 1,58,99,25,910.06

Raw Material Consumed Rs. 1,19,41,62,667.35 Stock Transfer - Outwards Rs. 2,86,81,657.37

Stock Transfer _ Inwards Rs. 4,35,34,059.80 Closing Stock as at 31..03.2010 Rs. 2,69,86,628.09

Others Charges Rs. 4,57,90,203.24 Damaged Stock - Marketing Section Rs. 19,800.81

Trading Expesnes Rs. 4,01,11,064.19 Dead Stock Rs. 38,332.08

Selling Expesnes Rs. 7,57,23,973.18

Freight & Carriages Rs. 7,29,44,315.93

Wages & Allowances Rs. 6,78,88,771.16

Total Rs. 1,57,71,49,389.51 Total Rs. 1,64,56,52,328.41

Gross Profit Rs. 6,85,02,938.90 Gross Loss Rs. -

Grand Total Rs. 1,64,56,52,328.41 Grand Total Rs. 1,64,56,52,328.41



TRADING & MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTFor the Period from 01.04.2009 To 31.03.2010

Schedule No. Expenditure Amount Schedule No. Income Amount

Establishment & Contingencies Gross Profit Rs. 6,85,02,938.90Salaries & Benefits Rs. 3,13,54,982.39 Misc. Income Rs. 31,87,303.46Administrative Expesnes Rs. 1,22,26,230.88Taxes & Licenses Rs. 4,89,305.00Depreciation Charged Rs. 1,55,29,192.43Damaged Stock Rs. 19,800.81Dead Stock Rs. 38,332.08Deficit Stock Rs. 721.79

Total Rs. 5,96,58,565.38 Total Rs. 7,16,90,242.36Profit Rs. 1,20,31,676.98 Loss Rs. -

Grand Total Rs. 7,16,90,242.36 Grand Total Rs. 7,16,90,242.36Net Loss Brought Forward from Previous year 3,24,16,203.39 Net Profit Brought Forward from Previous year Rs. -

Net Loss Brought Forward for Current year Rs. - Net Profit Brought Forward for current year Rs. 1,20,31,676.98Net Profit Rs. - Net Loss Rs. 2,03,84,526.41

Total 3,24,16,203.39 Total 3,24,16,203.39



PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTFor the Period from 01.04.2009 To 31.03.2010

180 | P a g e


► End Report ◄