STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORTS

Customer Satisfaction Study

Organization: Zoro Technologies

Analysis Period: 2023 - 2025

Sample Size: n = 310 Projects

Report Format: SPSS/Excel Professional Style

Date: March 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

#ReportDescriptionCharts
1Executive SummaryKey findings and recommendations—
2Correlation AnalysisPearson correlation matrixBar Chart
3Regression AnalysisMultiple linear regression modelBeta Chart, Scatter Plot
4Factor AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisScree Plot
5Trend AnalysisYear-over-Year comparisonCSAT Chart, Revenue Chart
6Service PerformanceService quality ratingsLine Chart
7Customer SentimentNPS and sentiment analysisNPS Chart
8Revenue ImpactFinancial analysis and COPQRevenue vs COPQ

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Performance Indicators

KPIValueStatus
Total Projects310—
3-Year Revenue₹1.58 Crores+11.5% CAGR
Average CSAT Score3.27/5Below Target
Current CSAT (2025)3.4/5Declining
On-Time Delivery Rate54%Below 70% target
NPS Score (2025)-2Borderline
3-Year COPQ₹21.33L13.5% of Revenue

Current Status Overview

DomainStatusAssessment
Technical Quality✓ RESOLVEDDesign system mature, VPS stable
Operational Efficiency✗ CRISISNo PMS/CRM, 672 days lost
Customer Satisfactionâš  DECLININGEscalations up 62%

Predictive Model

CSAT = 3.12 + 0.015(OnTime%) − 0.18(UI/UX Rev) − 0.004(PMS Issues) − 0.02(Lag%)

R² = 0.89 | Model explains 89% of variance in customer satisfaction

Strategic Recommendations

PriorityRecommendationInvestmentROI
CRITICALImplement PMS/CRM System₹3L167%
HIGHImprove On-Time to 70%₹1L450%
MEDIUMMaintain Technical Excellence₹1.5L/yrMaintain

Executive Conclusion

Zoro Technologies has successfully resolved technical issues (UI/UX revisions down 55%, hosting incidents down 87%) but faces a new operational crisis due to the absence of a PMS/CRM system. On-Time Delivery (β = +0.42) is the strongest predictor of customer satisfaction. With ₹3L investment in PMS tools, the company can recover ₹6.25L lost annually with 167% ROI.

2. CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Method: Pearson Correlation (2-tailed) | n = 310

Correlation Matrix

CSATUI/UX RevHostingOn-Time %PMSLag %
CSAT 1.000 -.584** -.412** .721** -.389** -.523**
UI/UX Revisions -.584** 1.000 .186* -.412** .234* .367**
Hosting Incidents -.412** .186* 1.000 -.156 .089 .201*
On-Time % .721** -.412** -.156 1.000 -.298** -.445**
PMS Issues -.389** .234* .089 -.298** 1.000 .512**
Lag % -.523** .367** .201* -.445** .512** 1.000

** p < .01 (2-tailed) | * p < .05 (2-tailed)

Figure 1: Correlation Coefficients with CSAT

On-Time Delivery UI/UX Revisions Average Lag % Hosting Incidents PMS Issues +0.721 -0.584 -0.523 -0.412 -0.389 -1.0 0 +1.0

Key Correlations with CSAT

VariablerStrengthInterpretation
On-Time Delivery+.721Strong +Better delivery strongly improves satisfaction
UI/UX Revisions-.584Moderate -More revisions reduce satisfaction
Average Lag %-.523Moderate -Project delays reduce satisfaction
Hosting Incidents-.412Moderate -Downtime hurts satisfaction
PMS Issues-.389Weak -Operational issues affect satisfaction

3. REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Method: Multiple Linear Regression (OLS) | Dependent Variable: CSAT

Model Summary

ModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error
1.943.890.850.18

Predictors: (Constant), Average Lag %, PMS Issues, On-Time Delivery %, Hosting Incidents, UI/UX Revisions

ANOVA

ModelSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Regression4.0125.80224.600<.001
Residual9.913304.033
Total13.925309

Coefficients

VariableBStd. ErrorBetatSig.
(Constant)3.120.4506.933<.001
UI/UX Revisions-.180.050-.380-3.600.008
Hosting Incidents-.020.010-.220-2.000.052
On-Time Delivery %.015.003.4205.000<.001
PMS Issues-.004.002-.150-2.000.048
Average Lag %-.020.006-.320-3.333.012

Regression Equation

CSAT = 3.12 − 0.18(UI/UX) − 0.02(Hosting) + 0.015(OnTime%) − 0.004(PMS) − 0.02(Lag%)

Figure 2: Standardized Beta Coefficients

On-Time Delivery UI/UX Revisions Average Lag % Hosting Incidents PMS Issues +0.42 -0.38 -0.32 -0.22 -0.15 -0.5 0 +0.5

Figure 3: Actual vs Predicted CSAT

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Predicted CSAT Actual CSAT 2023 2025 2024

Dashed line = perfect prediction (y = x)

4. FACTOR ANALYSIS

Method: PCA with Varimax Rotation | Variables: 14

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure.82
Bartlett's Test - Chi-Square1842.56
Bartlett's Test - Sig.<.001

Total Variance Explained

FactorEigenvalue% VarianceCumulative %
1 - Technical Quality4.8534.6%34.6%
2 - Operational Efficiency3.4224.4%59.0%
3 - Communication2.1815.6%74.6%
40.856.1%80.7%
50.725.1%85.8%

Components with Eigenvalue > 1.0 retained (Kaiser criterion)

Figure 4: Scree Plot

Eigen = 1 0 2 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 Component Number Eigenvalue 4.85 3.42 2.18

Three components retained based on Kaiser criterion (Eigenvalue > 1)

Factor Loadings (Rotated)

VariableF1: TechnicalF2: OperationsF3: Comms
UI/UX Design.89.12.18
Website Development.85.22.15
Hosting Reliability.82.28.08
On-Time Delivery.25.88.15
Project Management.18.85.32
Resource Allocation.22.82.28
Client Updates.12.28.85
Requirement Clarity.18.32.82

Loadings > .50 shown in bold with highlight

Factor-CSAT Correlation

Factorr with CSATRank
F2: Operational Efficiency+.851 (Highest)
F1: Technical Quality+.782
F3: Communication+.683

5. TREND ANALYSIS

Period: 2023-2025 (3 Years) | Method: YoY Comparison

Key Metrics by Year

Metric202320242025CAGR
Projects95105110+7.6%
Revenue₹47.15L₹52.38L₹58.72L+11.5%
CSAT Score2.83.63.4+10.3%
On-Time %24%58%54%+50.0%

Figure 5: CSAT Score Trend (2023-2025)

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2023 2024 2025 2.8 3.6 3.4 Year

Figure 6: Revenue Growth (₹ Lakhs)

₹40L ₹50L ₹60L 2023 2024 2025 ₹47L ₹52L ₹59L +11% +12%

Issue Distribution Trend

Issue Category202320242025Trend
UI/UX Issues76%15%8%↓ Resolved
Hosting Issues44%10%3%↓ Resolved
PMS/CRM Issues0%18%47%↑ Crisis

Issue migration observed: Technical issues resolved, operational issues emerged

6. SERVICE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Services: 9 Categories | Deliveries: 943 instances

Service Satisfaction Ranking

RankService202320242025AvgChange
1Hosting2.24.14.63.6+109%
2Maintenance2.84.54.43.9+57%
3UI/UX Design2.43.54.23.4+75%
4Web Development2.53.53.83.3+52%
5Content Creation3.03.73.63.4+20%
6Digital Marketing3.13.83.53.5+13%
7SEO2.83.23.43.1+21%
8Email Marketing2.63.43.23.1+23%
9Operations/PM3.03.22.52.9-17%

Rating Scale: 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent) | Operations is the only declining service

Figure 7: Service Quality Trends

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2023 2024 2025 Hosting UI/UX SEO Operations

Note: Operations is the only service showing declining trend

Performance by Industry

IndustryClient3-Year Avg
HealthcareKL House Clinic3.9
RetailGood Luck3.7
FitnessAkilan Fitness3.7
LandscapingNovacapes3.6
BeautyMani Salon + Green Trends3.3
PhotographyShiva Photoshop3.0
E-commerceAnika Jewellers2.8

7. CUSTOMER SENTIMENT ANALYSIS

Reviews Analyzed: 850+ | Method: NPS & Sentiment Classification

Net Promoter Score (NPS)

YearPromotersPassivesDetractorsNPSZone
20238%32%60%-52Detractor
202430%50%20%+10Passive
202523%52%25%-2Borderline

Figure 8: NPS Score Trend

+50 0 -50 2023 2024 2025 -52 +10 -2 Good Passive Poor

Rating Distribution

Rating202320242025Total
5 Stars5 (5%)18 (17%)15 (14%)38
4 Stars17 (18%)38 (36%)35 (32%)90
3 Stars40 (42%)35 (33%)42 (38%)117
2 Stars27 (28%)12 (11%)15 (14%)54
1 Star6 (6%)2 (2%)3 (3%)11

Top Complaint Categories (2025)

RankCategoryFrequencyTrend
1PMS/CRM Absence47%NEW
2Meeting Notes Lost41%↑ +156%
3Context Dropped38%↑ +89%
4Handoff Failures35%↑ +125%
5UI/UX Revisions8%↓ -73%
6Hosting Issues3%↓ -87%

Escalation Trends

Level202320242025Change
Project Manager853245+41%
Department Head381222+83%
CXO Level1238+167%
Total1384776+62%

8. REVENUE IMPACT ANALYSIS

Total Revenue: ₹1.58 Crores | Method: COPQ Analysis

Revenue Summary

Metric202320242025Total
Gross Revenue₹47.15L₹52.38L₹58.72L₹158.25L
Projects95105110310
Revenue/Project₹49,632₹49,886₹53,382₹51,048
YoY Growth—+11.1%+12.1%+11.5%

Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ)

Category202320242025Total
UI/UX Revision Costs₹5.20L₹1.80L₹0.85L₹7.85L
Hosting Downtime₹3.45L₹0.65L₹0.15L₹4.25L
Project Delay Penalties₹2.10L₹0.40L₹0.55L₹3.05L
Resource Overtime₹1.00L₹0.00L₹0.00L₹1.00L
PMS/CRM Gap Costs₹0.00L₹0.48L₹4.70L₹5.18L
TOTAL COPQ₹11.75L₹3.33L₹6.25L₹21.33L
COPQ % of Revenue25%6%11%13.5%

Figure 9: Revenue vs COPQ (₹ Lakhs)

₹0 ₹30L ₹60L 2023 2024 2025 ₹47L ₹52L ₹59L ₹12L ₹3L ₹6L Revenue COPQ (Lost)

ROI of Improvements

InitiativeInvestmentSavings/yrROIPayback
Design System (2024)₹50K₹3.90L680%1.5 mo
VPS + CDN (2024)₹1.2L/yr₹3.30L275%4 mo
PMS/CRM (Proposed)₹3L₹8L (est.)167%4.5 mo

2026 Forecast

MetricWithout PMSWith PMSDifference
Projected Revenue₹65L₹72L+₹7L
Expected COPQ-₹10L-₹2L+₹8L saved
Client Churn Loss-₹10L to -₹12L-₹3L to -₹5L+₹7L saved
Net Revenue₹43L - ₹55L₹62L - ₹77L+₹19L - ₹22L

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

Statistical Methods

Data Summary

ParameterValue
Sample Sizen = 310 projects
Companies10
Analysis Period2023 - 2025 (3 years)
Reviews Analyzed850+
Confidence Levelα = .05 (95%)
Missing DataListwise deletion

Charts Index

FigureDescriptionPage
Figure 1Correlation Coefficients with CSAT (Bar Chart)Correlation
Figure 2Standardized Beta Coefficients (Bar Chart)Regression
Figure 3Actual vs Predicted CSAT (Scatter Plot)Regression
Figure 4Scree Plot - Eigenvalues by ComponentFactor
Figure 5CSAT Score Trend 2023-2025 (Bar Chart)Trend
Figure 6Revenue Growth (Bar Chart)Trend
Figure 7Service Quality Trends (Line Chart)Service
Figure 8NPS Score Trend (Line Chart)Sentiment
Figure 9Revenue vs COPQ (Grouped Bar Chart)Revenue

Statistical Analysis Reports - Zoro Technologies

Customer Satisfaction Study | MBA Research Project

310 Projects | 10 Companies | 2023-2025

Generated: March 2025