If, in fact, you have a statistically meaningful sample, the fact that the average number of employees in the respondents' organizations is 4,660 is disconcerting. Only a very few companies out of the 20,000 APICS companies are that big. Of course, the average employment can be badly skewed by a few respondents from government, General Motors, 3M or Boeing. Perhaps the median employment of respondents' organizations would have been more meaningful in what you are trying to convey. In addition, the fact that 46 percent claim some input regarding hardware expenditures averaging $179,000 and 52 percent claim input on software purchases averaging $143,000 implies that your respondents were mostly managers and did not reflect the rank and file of APICS members.

Is it that only members from large companies read the magazine, is it that only members (and managers) in large companies have the time or interest to complete the survey, is it that the author of the piece doesn't understand statistics well enough to provide the reader with meaningful information, or is it that you did not get a statistically valid sample?

The real moral of this is that if most of your readership really comes from the large companies, it would seem that you are missing the boat. It implies that the folks in the thousands of small companies are not interested enough in the subject matter being presented to take the time to go through the magazine or to respond to the survey. These are the folks that need the most help. The fact that 87 percent of respondents thought the magazine is "excellent" or "good" does not necessarily show that you are meeting the needs of manufacturing people.

Certainly, this reader from a one-person company enjoys much of your material. I note a fairly large number of articles about 300-500 employee firms and how they achieved success using XYZ software. Even so, that still leaves out about 70 percent of all manufacturing companies and employees. What can be done to help these companies?

—Robert D. Johnson, CFPIM, CIRM

Survey Conductor's Response
First, I would like to address Mr. Johnson's questions regarding the validity of the reader survey. For a survey to be valid, the sample must represent the population. Random or systematic (nth name) selection, rather than judgment or convenience, must determine who will be chosen for the sample. This ensures that each individual in the population has an equal chance for selection. For the 1997 Recipient Profile, the sample of 650 recipients was randomly selected from APICS—The Performance Advantage's domestic recipients using an nth name select.

Since surveys rarely achieve 100 percent response rates, there is always the danger that people who didn't respond might have answered differently from those who did. If they would have answered differently, the survey's estimates are flawed by non-response bias. High response rates dramatically reduce possible error due to non-response bias. The Advertising Research Foundation suggests a 60 percent response rate (or better) is needed to minimize the impact of non-response bias, ensuring the survey truly represents the population of interest.

Four hundred and nine returns were received for the 1997 Recipient Profile — a 63 percent response rate. The margin of error for percentages based on 409 usable responses is ±4.8 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means the chances are 95 in 100 that the survey results do not vary, plus or minus, by more than 4.8 percent from the result that would be obtained if interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe represented by the sample.

The remainder of Mr. Johnson's questions seem to center around who the research represented. This research represents recipients of APICS—The Performance Advantage. It does not and was not intended to represent APICS members only. The vast majority of APICS—The Performance Advantage's recipients indicated they are members of APICS (93 percent); however, members do not comprise the entire circulation.

This profile ofAPICS—The Performance Advantage recipients revealed:

• 79 percent work for organizations that are best described as manufacturing operations

• 56 percent work for organizations with 500 or more full- and part-time employees

The typical recipient works for an organization with 827 employees. (This median figure is a better projection than the average figure. The average is influenced by a small number of respondents who may work for very large organizations. The median was reported by Readex in the report provided to APICS.)

• 46 percent reported their organization's revenues for its most recently completed fiscal year were $100 million or more

• 47 percent are managers

This data does suggest that many of APICS—The Peformance Advantage recipients work for large organizations in managerial roles. It is not alarming if this profile does not directly correspond to the manufacturing industry as a whole. These findings represent recipients of APICS—The Peformance Advantage, not the manufacturing industry as a whole.

APICS—The Performance Advantage is currently doing a good job providing the information their recipients are interested in. Eighty-seven percent rated the magazine as "excellent" or "good." Additionally, 88 percent would recommend the magazine to others.

—Lisa Ketola
Senior Project Director
Readex, Inc.

Editor's Note:
I would like to address Mr. Johnson's last point: "What can be done to help these companies [smaller manufacturing concerns]?" APICS—The Performance Advantage has always been as equally open to input from smaller manufacturing companies as their larger industry counterparts. However, the lack of time and resources available to many small companies may lead to our not being kept abreast of newsworthy or otherwise interesting developments that occur in this segment of the industry.

To help counter this, I have made it a regular practice to request information from the entire spectrum of APICS—The Performance Advantage recipients in my regularly appearing "Letter from the Editor." And I always include my e-mail address to facilitate any response that might be forthcoming.

In addition, the APICS Across America feature, which spotlights the activities of the 270 APICS chapters throughout North America, always begins with a request that any ideas for future coverage be directed to Barbara Gleason at APICS headquarters. Coverage in this section is, of course, open to companies of all sizes.

Finally, two columns that run monthly in the magazine: "Consultants Forum" and "Lessons Learned" operate largely on the direct submission of articles/information from readers (associated with both small and large companies).

I appreciate Mr. Johnson's concerns, and would like for his thoughtful letter to serve as a catalyst for greater input from the smaller companies' segment of APICS—The Performance Advantage readership. As always, our ears remain equally open to your input.

—David Greenfield, editor

Copyright © 2020 by APICS — The Educational Society for Resource Management. All rights reserved.

Web Site © Copyright 2020 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
All rights reserved.


Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
2555 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 299, Atlanta, GA 30339 USA
Phone: +44 23 8110 3411 |
E-mail:
Web: www.lionheartpub.com


Web Design by Premier Web Designs
E-mail: [email protected]