Accounting for quality: return on investments in quality assurance programs.

Sale, Martha L.

ABSTRACT

Much has been written in the management literature about the strategic necessity of quality. Although companies have surged forward with quality initiatives, there is little documentation of the value of such programs. ISO 9000 is one of the most widely recognized international quality initiatives, and in fact, its use is so widespread that competitors in certain industries are compelled to adopt. The Baldridge Award is a competition based on adherence to quality standards that was established by Congress and is administered by the US Department of Commerce. It was developed in an attempt to encourage US companies to become more competitive based on a strategy of quality. Since its initial development, over a half million companies have become ISO registered and certified. Most companies register and become certified in hopes of reducing costs from customer complaints, improving customer service, reducing work in process, and increasing their ability to compete. In addition, hundreds of US companies compete annually for the Baldridge Award. The argument arises as to what extent companies are seeing results consistent with the financial rewards expected from adoption these quality initiatives. The purpose of this research is to determine if companies that invest quality initiatives see returns in the form of above average revenues or return on investment.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written in the management literature about the strategic necessity of quality. Although companies have pressed forward with quality initiatives, and antidotal evidence suggests benefits, there is little documentation of the value of such programs. This paper reports the results of comparisons between common financial accounting measures of performance between adopters of quality initiatives and the adopter's industry average.

During recent decades as competition increased in local and foreign markets, companies searched for ways to maintain a competitive advantage over rivals and delivering a quality product consistently to customers became a key strategic goal for many organizations. Industrial, commercial, and governmental entities established their own quality systems and standards, but to insure equality and to facilitate foreign exchange between manufacturers or service providers and their suppliers, a standard was needed to effectively manage and control methods used to attain the label "quality assured".

Total Quality Management (TQM), Six Sigma, and ISO 9000 are three, quality improvement initiatives widely recognized internationally. In addition, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Baldridge Award) program is generally the most prestigious quality award in the US and is widely credited as a tool that has helped applicants to become more competitive on the basis of quality.

ISO 9000 is one of the most widely recognized quality initiatives internationally, and in fact, its use is so widespread that competitors in certain industries are compelled to adopt. The International Organization of Standardization (ISO), the world's largest developer of standards, began operations in 1947 with one member from each of the 147 countries (ISO, 2003). ISO is not just a standard for quality but rather an organization designed to bridge business practices and consumers needs. It provides companies with guidelines on how to establish systems for managing quality products or services (Barnes, 1998). In 1989, the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB) was established to provide accreditation services for ISO registrars. Soon after, ISO 9000 was developed to provide a common standard by which a company could manage and measure quality assurance. Later in 1991, RAB and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) united to establish the American National Accreditation Program for Registrars of Quality Systems. Since its initial development, over a half million companies have become ISO registered and certified. Most companies register and become certified in hopes of reducing costs from customer complaints, improving customer service, reducing work in process, and increasing their ability to compete (RABNet, 2004). The question arises as to the extent customers of ISO certified companies are seeing consistent improvement in the quality of their products.

In the US, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program was developed to recognize those applicants that have demonstrated the highest commitment to quality. In the early and mid-1980s, many industry and government leaders became convinced that a emphasis on quality was no longer an option for American companies but necessary for doing business in ever expanding, and more demanding, competitive world market. However an emphasis on quality was slow to develop in many American businesses. Moreover, managers did not know how to begin in their quest for quality. In 1987, Congress established the award program to recognize US organizations for their achievements in quality and performance and to raise awareness about the importance of quality and performance excellence as a competitive edge. The National Institute of Standards (NIST), a branch of the US. Department of Commerce, administers Baldridge Award.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AWARD RECIPIENTS

The organizations that apply for the Baldridge Award compete on a comprehensive set of quality criteria. The criteria are revised annually to reflect the latest developments in quality. They are designed to help organizations use an integrated approach to organizational performance management that results in delivering of improved value to customers, contributing to market success, improving overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities, and providing organizational and personal learning. In 2003, the criteria were built upon the following set of interrelated core value and concepts (NIST, 2003a).

* Visionary leadership

* Customer-driven excellence

* Organizational and personal learning

* Valuing employees and partners

* Agility

* Focus on the future

* Managing for innovation

* Management by fact

* Social responsibility

* Focus on results and creating value

* Systems perspective

To examine the comparative performance of adopters of quality initiatives, it was first necessary to identify a study group of adopters. Although many companies have adopted TQM, ISO 9000, Six Sigma, and a host of other quality initiatives, it is difficult to identify adaptors and difficult to determine the degree of commitment of each company to quality initiatives. Because winners of the Baldridge award have demonstrated a strong commitment to quality, these companies will be used as a surrogate for adopters of quality initiatives in this study.

It is expected that if there is, in fact, quality is a necessary component of success for US businesses, then there should exist a positive relationship between winning the Baldridge Award and company performance. A study conducted by NIST (2003c) found that companies adopting quality management experience an overall improvement in employee relations, higher productivity, greater customers' satisfaction, increased market shares, and improved productivity. A recent NIST study that tracks a hypothetical stock investment in Baldrige Award winners contendss that these companies soundly outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 by almost three-to-one.

Rajan et al. (1999), supported the hypothesis that long-term investors are rewarded for investing in Baldrige award receipts. An implication of this finding is that an effective TQM strategy can be a driving force behind firm equity value. Specifically, companies that demonstrate

their commitment to customer satisfaction by focusing on Baldrige core value and concepts generate solid returns that ultimately benefit shareholders.

Przasnyski and Tai (1999) examined the stock reaction to announcement of the winning the Baldridge Award and the long-term impact of buying, and holding, shares of award-winning companies. In the first case, the results support the semi-strong efficient market hypothesis. They concluded that the award is expected any advantage is reflected in the market price before the award is announced. In the second part of analysis, a fictitious mutual fund made up of Baldridge Award winners underperformed stocks with similar risk and industry characteristics by a 31% margin. Surprisingly, the award-winning stocks as a group performed much worse than similar industries.

In the early years, three awards were given annually in each of these categories: manufacturing, service, small business. Starting in 1999, awards in the area of education and healthcare were added. From 1988-2002, there were 51 awards given to the US organizations as shown in Table 1. These 51 awards represent 44 organizations because two or more divisions in a firm were given awards. For example, AT&T Network Systems Group Transmission Systems Business Unit got an award in 1992, AT&T Universal Card Services got an award in 1992, and AT&T Consumer Communications Services got an award in 1994.

Data for this study was obtained from the Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys since they provide return on equity and return on revenue data for publicly traded companies in the US and the same data based on industry averages. The required data years are 1988-2003 since 1988 is the first year that awards were given. However, each issue provides the data for the previous year so the issues for years 1989 through 2003 were used.

From the Table 1, there are 44 organizations that received Baldridge Award. Some winners, however, were not publicly traded companies or were segments of other companies for which no segregate data was available. Eliminating the firms for which there was no data left a sample of seventeen firms.

First, a comparison was conducted between return on revenue of the Baldridge Award winners and their own industries average by the following methodology.

* The Baldridge Award winner's return on revenue was determined in the year of the award (Year 1).

* Industry average return of revenue for each firm was determined in the year of the award.

* The difference between the individual firms return on revenue and the industry average was determined.

* The difference was expressed as a percent of the industry (Tables 2-3)

* The resulting data was subjected to ANOVA statistic analysis (Tables 4-6)

* This process was then repeated for the year following the award (Year 2) and for each subsequent year (Years 3-14) for which data was available.

As for return on revenue, there are only three years, Year 1, Year 5, and Year 11 that average return on revenue of the Baldridge Award winners was better than the average for their industries. Moreover, the years that were better were better than the average by only a few percentage points. The differences, when subjected to ANOVA did not prove to be statistically significant.

A similar process was followed to compare each company with their industry average for return on equity. The company average results are significantly higher than the industry averages for this measure. There are only 4 years that the individual results are worse than the average. These differences were not statistically significant either.

From this result, there is no support for the hypothesis that winners of the Baldridge Award out perform their industry average.

Since some winners were represented by only certain divisions and one department cannot be expected to represent the activities of the whole firm, eight companies were eliminated on the basis that the entire company was not given the award. After deleting those firms, there were nine firms in this study as shown in Table 6 and Table 7. From these, data was analyzed as in the prior section.

After eliminating the firms, in which a division won the award, the results show even less evidence that there is an advantage to the award. There are only two years that the company averages are better than their industries for return on revenue. Moreover, when compared with their industry average on return on equity, the number of years that the companies perform better drop to four.

CONCLUSION

The results show that winners' return on revenue and return on equity is below their industry average, but not to an extent that is statistically significant. Moreover, removing the firms where the award was presented to a division caused the results to be less positive. From this study, we cannot show support for the implementation of quality initiatives resulting in better financial performance. This supports the findings of Przasnyski and Tai (2002). Neither study actually addressed the possible reasons for Baldridge Award winners performing below their industry averages. However, Przasnyski and Tai (2002) speculate that it might be because they fail to take on projects with a normally acceptable degree of risk. Another possible explanation is simply that the company has invested a great deal of resources in attaining the Baldridge Award and that this investment has not yielded an above average return for the company. This conclusion would lead to the further conclusion that perhaps there is a level of quality for which customers are unwilling to pay that lies beyond the customers perception of value.

REFERENCES

Aldred, K. (1998). Baldrige Index outperforms S&P 500, IIE Solutions, 30(4), 9.

ISO (2004) http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html Revised 2-16-04

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), (2003a) Criteria for Performance Excellence, The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Gaithersburg, MD, United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology).

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), (2003b) 1988-2002 Award Recipients' Contacts and Profiles, http://www.quality.nist.gov/Contacts_Profiles.htm.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), (2003c) Frequently Asked Questions about the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award http://www.quality.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/baldfags.htm

Przasnyski, Z.H. & Tai, L.S. (2002) Stock performance of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award winning companies, Total Quality Management, 13(4), 475-488.

RABnet (2004) http://www.rabnet.com/ab_main.shtml, revised 3-1-2004

Rajan, Murli, Tamimi, Nabil (1999) Baldrige Award Winner: The payoff to quality, Journal of Investing, 8(4), 39.

Standard & Poor's Corporation (1993) Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys 1993, New York: S&P.

Standard & Poor's Corporation (1993) Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys 1998, New York: S&P.

Standard & Poor's Corporation (1993) Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys 2003, New York: S&P.

Martha L. Sale, Sam Houston State University

Table 1. Baldridge Award Winners

Year Categories Organizations

1988 Small Business Globe Metallurgical Inc.
 Manufacturing Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial
 Nuclear Fuel Division
 Manufacturing Motorola Inc.
1989 Manufacturing Milliken & Company
 Manufacturing Xerox Corporation, Business Products & Systems
1990 Manufacturing Cadillac Motor Car Company
 Manufacturing IBM Rochester
 Service Federal Express Corporation
 Small Business Wallace Co., Inc.
1991 Small Business Marlow Industries, Inc.
 Manufacturing Zytec Corporation
 Manufacturing Solectron Corporation
1992 Manufacturing AT&T Network Systems Group Transmission Systems
 Business Unit
 Service The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company
1992 Service AT&T Universal Card Services
 Manufacturing Texas Instruments Incorporated Defense Systems
 & Electronics Group
 Small Business Granite Rock Company
1993 Small Business Ames Rubber Corporation
 Manufacturing Eastman Chemical Company
1994 Service AT&T Consumer Communications Services
 Small Business Wainwright Industries, Inc.
 Service Verizon Information Services
1995 Manufacturing Armstrong World Industries, Inc.,
 Manufacturing Corning Incorporated,
1996 Manufacturing ADAC Laboratories
 Service Dana Commercial Credit Corporation
 Small Business Custom Research Inc.
 Small Business Trident Precision Manufacturing, Inc.
1997 Manufacturing 3M Dental Products Division
 Manufacturing Solectron Corporation
 Service Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation
 Service Xerox Business Services
1998 Manufacturing Boeing Airlift and Tanker Programs
 Manufacturing Solar Turbines Incorporated
 Small Business Texas Nameplate Company, Inc.
1999 Manufacturing STMicroelectronics, Inc.--Region Americas
 Service The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
 Service BI
 Small Business Sunny Fresh Foods
2000 Manufacturing Dana Corporation--Spicer Driveshaft Division
 Manufacturing KARLEE Company, Inc
 Service Operations Management International, Inc.
 Small Business Los Alamos National Bank
2001 Manufacturing Clarke American Checks, Inc.
 Small Business Pal's Sudden Service
 Education Pearl River School District
 Education University of Wisconsin-Stout
 Education Chugach School District
2002 Manufacturing Motorola Commercial, Government & Industrial
 Solutions Sector
 Health Care SSM Health Care
 Small Business Branch-Smith Printing Division

Table 2. The difference as percent of average industries (Return on
revenue)

Company Year 1 2 3 4

Motorola, Inc. 1988 -32% -25% -12% -23%
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS 1988 -2% -1% -56% NM
Xerox Corp. 1989 4% 100% NM NM
Federal Express Corp 1990 -90% NA -36% -4%
General Motors 1990 -3% NM NM -45%
IBM 1990 -6% 52% NM NM
Texas Instruments 1992 -63% -52% -48% -39%
AT&T 1992 91% 38% 32% -96%
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International 1992 -55% -73% -75% -73%
Eastman Chemical Co. 1993 91% 5% 10% 10%
Verison/GTE Corp 1994 9% 15% 4% -13%
Armstrong World Industries 1995 -79% 88% 57% NM
Corning Inc. 1995 NM 20% 25% 35%
ADAC Labs 1996 -9% -37% -78% -100%
Dana Corp 1996 -25% -15% -24% -36%
Merrill Lynch 1997 -49% -73% -46% -37%
The Boeing Company 1998 -64% -27% -19% 6%

Company 5 6 7 8 9

Motorola, Inc. 4% -22% -16% -12% -45%
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS -34% NM -87% NM NM
Xerox Corp. NM 147% NA NA NA
Federal Express Corp 20% 37% 46% -1% -21%
General Motors -26% 12% -25% 26% -65%
IBM 4% 36% 79% 86% 48%
Texas Instruments NM -74% -53% NA NA
AT&T 78% -7% 10% -50% -40%
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International -71% -66% -54% -52% -56%
Eastman Chemical Co. -1% 7% -76% 11% NM
Verison/GTE Corp 6% 14% 41% -84%
Armstrong World Industries -94% NA NA
Corning Inc. -4% -47% NM
ADAC Labs NA NA
Dana Corp -48% NM
Merrill Lynch -87%
The Boeing Company

Company 10 11 12 13 14

Motorola, Inc. -56% NM -77% -67% NM
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS NM NM -60% NA NA
Xerox Corp. NA NA NA NA
Federal Express Corp -11% -32% 25%
General Motors -29% -29% -90%
IBM 11% 37% 206%
Texas Instruments NA
AT&T NM
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International -73%
Eastman Chemical Co.
Verison/GTE Corp
Armstrong World Industries
Corning Inc.
ADAC Labs
Dana Corp
Merrill Lynch
The Boeing Company

Table 3. The difference as percent of average industries (Return
on equity)

Company Year 1 2 3 4

Motorola, Inc. 1988 -16% 28% 36% 25%
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS 1988 7% 6% -51% NM
Xerox Corp. 1989 74% 92% 236% NM
Federal Express Corp. 1990 -92% NA -95% -39%
General Motors 1990 -27% NM NM 101%
IBM 1990 -20% 35% NM NM
Texas Instruments 1992 -3% 15% 27% 43%
AT&T 1992 72% 89% 140% -95%
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International 1992 NA NA 74% 75%
Eastman Chemical Co. 1993 96% 78% -22% 27%
Verison/ GTE Corp 1994 45% 50% 55% -7%
Armstrong World Industries 1995 NM 52% -44% NM
Corning Inc. 1995 NM -1% 83% 66%
ADAC Labs 1996 -41% -11% -65% -100%
Dana Corp 1996 61% 49% 6% -31%
Merrill Lynch 1997 11% -42% -20% -16%
The Boeing Company 1998 -45% 27% 12% 97%

Company 5 6 7 8 9

Motorola, Inc. 48% 39% 20% 28% -19%
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS -38% NM -86% NM NM
Xerox Corp. NM 137% NA NA NA
Federal Express Corp. -14% -4% 12% -6% -28%
General Motors 38% 52% -12% 77% --
IBM 22% 53% 93% 29% 19%
Texas Instruments NM -60% -39% NA NA
AT&T 115% -20% -7% -70% -77%
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International 40% 137% 79% 36% 34%
Eastman Chemical Co. -23% 8% -96% -53% NM
Verison/ GTE Corp -1% 31% 92% -85%
Armstrong World Industries -89% NA NA
Corning Inc. 43% -58% NM
ADAC Labs NA NA
Dana Corp -29% NM
Merrill Lynch -85%
The Boeing Company

Company 10 11 12 13 14

Motorola, Inc. -147% NM -132% -151% NM
Westinghouse Electric Corp/CBS NM NM -92% NA
Xerox Corp. NA NA NA NA
Federal Express Corp. -21% -31% 10%
General Motors 14% -12% --
IBM 47% 75% 225%
Texas Instruments NA
AT&T NM
Ritz Carlton/Mariott
 International -12%
Eastman Chemical Co.
Verison/ GTE Corp
Armstrong World Industries
Corning Inc.
ADAC Labs
Dana Corp
Merrill Lynch
The Boeing Company

Table 4. Anova and analysis of the results

 Return on Revenue

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Year 0 16 -2.8094 -0.1756 0.2755
Year 1 15 0.1367 0.0091 0.2765
Year 2 14 -2.6716 -0.1908 0.1659
Year 3 13 -4.1496 -0.3192 0.1630
Year 4 13 -2.5546 -0.1965 0.2269
Year 5 11 0.3757 0.0342 0.3725
Year 6 10 -1.3482 -0.1348 0.3135
Year 7 8 -0.7769 -0.0971 0.2851
Year 8 6 -1.7863 -0.2977 0.1688
Year 9 5 -1.5866 -0.3173 0.1166
Year 10 3 -0.2465 -0.0822 0.1505
Year 11 5 0.0456 0.0091 1.5228
Year 12 1 -0.6742 -0.6742 --

 Return on Equity

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Year 0 14 1.2283 0.0877 0.2943
Year 1 14 4.6514 0.3322 0.1488
Year 2 15 3.7069 0.2471 0.7308
Year 3 13 1.4697 0.1131 0.4409
Year 4 13 0.2783 0.0214 0.3237
Year 5 11 3.1561 0.2869 0.4386
Year 6 10 0.5529 0.0553 0.4683
Year 7 8 -0.4458 -0.0557 0.3361
Year 8 5 -0.7187 -0.1437 0.1896
Year 9 5 -1.1988 -0.2398 0.5403
Year 10 3 0.3274 0.1091 0.3192
Year 11 4 0.1175 0.0294 2.5505
Year 12 1 -1.5072 -1.5072 --

Table 5. Anova and analysis of the results

Source of Variation SS df MS

 Return on Revenue

 Between Groups 1.897659 12 0.158138
 Within Groups 31.083 107 0.290495
 Total 32.98066 119

 Return on Equity

 Between Groups 5.240125 12 0.436677
 Within Groups 47.32856 103 0.459501
 Total 52.56869 115

Source of Variation F P-value F crit

 Return on Revenue

 Between Groups 0.544374 0.880908 1.843745
 Within Groups

 Total

 Return on Equity

 Between Groups 0.95033 0.500831 1.847354
 Within Groups

 Total

Table 6. The difference as percent of average industries after
eliminating (Return on revenue)

 Year 1 2 3 4

Motorola, Inc. 1988 -32% -25% -12% -23%
Federal Express Corp. 1990 -90% NA -36% -4%
AT&T 1992 91% 38% 32% -96%
Eastman Chemical Co. 1993 91% 5% 10% 10%
Verison/GTE Corp 1994 9% 15% 4% -13%
Armstrong World Industries 1995 -79% 88% 57% NM
Corning Inc. 1995 NM 20% 25% 35%
ADAC Labs 1996 -9% -37% -78% -100%
Merrill Lynch 1997 -49% -73% -46% -37%

 5 6 7 8 9

Motorola, Inc. 4% -22% -16% -12% -45%
Federal Express Corp. 20% 37% 46% -1% -21%
AT&T 78% -7% 10% -50% -40%
Eastman Chemical Co. -1% 7% -76% 11%
Verison/GTE Corp 6% 14% 41% -84%
Armstrong World Industries -94% NA NA
Corning Inc. -4% -47%
ADAC Labs NA NA
Merrill Lynch -87%

 10 11 12 13 14

Motorola, Inc. -56% NM -77% -67% NM
Federal Express Corp. -11% -32% 25%
AT&T
Eastman Chemical Co.
Verison/GTE Corp
Armstrong World Industries
Corning Inc.
ADAC Labs
Merrill Lynch

Table 7. The difference as percent of average industries after
eliminating (Return on equity)

BALDRIDGE AWARD

Company Year 1 2 3 4

Motorola, Inc. 1988 -16% 28% 36% 25%
Federal Express Corp. 1990 -92% NA -95% -39%
AT&T 1992 72% 89% 140% -95%
Eastman Chemical Co. 1993 96% 78% -22% 27%
Verison/GTE Corp 1994 45% 50% 55% -7%
Armstrong World Industries 1995 NM 52% -44% NM
Corning Inc. 1995 NM -1% 83% 66%
ADAC Labs 1996 -41% -11% -65% -100%
Merrill Lynch 1997 11% -42% -20% -16%

Company 5 6 7 8 9

Motorola, Inc. 48% 39% 20% 28% -19%
Federal Express Corp. -14% -4% 12% -6% -28%
AT&T 115% -20% -7% -70% -77%
Eastman Chemical Co. -23% 8% -96% -53%
Verison/GTE Corp -1% 31% 92% -85%
Armstrong World Industries -89% NA NA
Corning Inc. 43% -58%
ADAC Labs NA NA
Merrill Lynch -85%

Company 10 11 12 13 14

Motorola, Inc. -147% NM -132% -151% NM
Federal Express Corp. -21% -31% 10%
AT&T
Eastman Chemical Co.
Verison/GTE Corp
Armstrong World Industries
Corning Inc.
ADAC Labs
Merrill Lynch

Table 8. Anova and analysis of the results after eliminating

 Return on Revenue

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Year 0 8 -0.67412 -0.08426 0.484147
Year 1 8 0.299833 0.03748 0.241597
Year 2 9 -0.44695 -0.04966 0.180313
Year 3 8 -2.28027 -0.28503 0.229907
Year 4 8 -0.78707 -0.09838 0.316579
Year 5 6 -0.17054 -0.02842 0.086670
Year 6 5 0.039653 0.00793 0.247248
Year 7 5 -1.37674 -0.27535 0.153120
Year 8 3 -1.06366 -0.35455 0.015621
Year 9 2 -0.67178 -0.33589 0.104929
Year10 1 -0.31959 -0.31959 #DIV/0!
Year11 2 -0.51372 -0.25686 0.522107
Year12 1 -0.67424 -0.67424 #DIV/0!

 Return on Equity

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

Year 0 7 0.75327 0.10761 0.437011
Year 1 8 2.422083 0.30276 0.207233
Year 2 9 0.675214 0.075024 0.580745
Year 3 8 -1.38562 -0.1732 0.344437
Year 4 8 -0.05693 -0.00712 0.474056
Year 5 6 -0.04203 -0.00701 0.127394
Year 6 5 0.208954 0.041791 0.456907
Year 7 5 -1.8627 -0.37254 0.22081
Year 8 3 -1.24691 -0.41564 0.096465
Year 9 2 -1.67781 -0.83891 0.789981
Year10 1 -0.30933 -0.30933 #DIV/0!
Year11 2 -1.21241 -0.60621 1.010834
Year12 1 -1.50716 -1.50716 #DIV/0!

Table 9. Anova and analysis of the results after eliminating

 Source of
 Variation SS df MS

Return Between Groups 1.362486 12 0.113541
on Within Groups 13.04122 53 0.246061
Revenue Total 14.40371 65

Return Between Groups 6.413708 12 0.534476
on Within Groups 19.78968 52 0.380571
Equity Total 26.20339 64

 Source of
 Variation F P-value F crit

Return Between Groups 0.461433 0.928186 1.939892
on Within Groups
Revenue Total

Return Between Groups 1.404405 0.194004 1.943619
on Within Groups
Equity Total