Results of Differences in Implementation of Kttn Between Enterprises of Different Sizes at Evn


The regression results also show that all three factors: Business competition (B = 0.153), management decentralization in the organizational structure (B = 0.188), and managers' awareness of KTTN (B = 0.365) have a positive impact on KTTN implementation at units in Vietnam Electricity Group.

Considering the level of influence of factors on the implementation of KTTN in units. The results show that the factor of managers' awareness of KTTN (β = 0.375) is the factor with the strongest impact on the implementation of KTTN in units in EVN. This result is completely consistent with the previous result of author Cao Thi Huyen Trang (2020) that managers' awareness of KTTN plays a key role in implementing KTTN in enterprises. Managers at all levels who are aware of the importance of implementing KTTN will create conditions for departments to implement KTTN, allocate budgets for investment in tools and applications to implement KTTN in the unit. Next is the influence of Competition in business (β = 0.194). Competition in the electricity industry still occurs while many people still believe that the electricity industry has a monopoly on prices. However, in reality, electricity enterprises still face competitive pressures among enterprises and electricity sectors such as wind power, hydropower, thermal power, and solar power. Competition in raw materials, input material prices, and human resources in the production process are also pressures that encourage enterprises to implement KTTN in order to be able to manage effectively and provide information to serve business decision-making in units and corporations in the Group.

The results of this study are different from previous studies on the impact of KTTN implementation costs, showing that KTTN implementation costs have a negative impact, but are not correlated with KTTN implementation. It can be explained that between different enterprises, the budget allocation for KTTN system implementation is different. In addition, KTTN is integrated into a part of the accounting information system, so users such as company leaders see that the implementation is obvious at the unit, it is a mandatory requirement and the enterprise integrates it into its management accounting systems without having to pay additional costs.


separate for implementing KTTN. The issue is only whether the enterprise can effectively exploit the infrastructure investments and implement the available management applications. However, due to the lack of statistical significance, further analysis of this factor is needed in the future to have further conclusions. In addition, this study also did not find a statistically significant impact of the Business Strategy factor of the unit on KTTN implementation in these units.

2.2.3.6. Results of differences in KTTN implementation between enterprises of different sizes at EVN

To test hypothesis H 1 , the author conducted a one-factor variance analysis between groups of enterprises of different sizes in implementing KTTN.

Regarding capital scale, according to Decree 39/2018/ND-CP, the author creates 3 groups of enterprises: micro and small scale (Total capital < 20 billion), medium scale (Total capital < 100 billion), and large scale (Total capital > 100 billion). Regarding revenue scale: Micro and small scale (Total revenue < 50 billion VND), medium scale (Total revenue < 200 billion VND), and large scale (Total revenue > 200 billion VND).

The statistical results of the assessment level of KTTN implementation among enterprises of different sizes are shown in Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8.



Figure 2.7. Statistical chart of the level of KTTN implementation at enterprises with different capital sizes at EVN

( Source: Author's synthesis from survey data )

The results in Figure 2.7 show that small and micro enterprises have the highest level of KTTN implementation (mean = 4.167), however, only 9/146 micro and small enterprises participated in the survey. Next, large enterprises also have good KTTN implementation (mean = 4.017), and up to 130/146 respondents work at large enterprises at EVN.



Figure 2.8. Statistical chart of the level of KTTN implementation at enterprises with different revenue scales at EVN

( Source: Author's synthesis from survey data )

The results in Figure 2.8 show that when classified by revenue size, there is no difference in the implementation of KTTN between small and medium-sized enterprises, and there is also no significant difference in the implementation of KTTN with large-sized enterprises classified by revenue.


Testing the difference in KTTN implementation according to capital source size:

The study examined the differences in implementing KTTN at EVN units according to 3 groups of different capital sources: small and micro enterprises, medium-sized enterprises and large-sized enterprises. The analysis results are presented in Table 2.23 as follows.

The results in Table 2.23 on homogeneity of variance test using Levene test have Sig. = 0.042 < 5%, so it can be concluded that there is a difference in variance value between groups of enterprises of different sizes in implementing KTTN. Therefore, in this case, the study uses Welch test to compare the difference between groups of differentiated variance.

The results of variance analysis using Welch test in Table 2.23 show that the significance level of the variable TH_KTTN is sig. = 0.254 > 5%. This shows that there is no statistically significant difference in implementing KTTN between groups of enterprises with different capital sizes.


Table 2.23. ANOVA analysis results by capital size


Test of Homogeneity of Variances



TH_KTTN




Levene Statistic


df1


df2


Sig.



3,242

2

143

.042









ANOVA

TH_KTTN


Sum of

Squares


df

Mean

Square


F


Sig.

Between Groups

.380

2

.190

.362

.697

Within Groups

75,006

143

.525



Total

75,386

145










Robust Tests of Equality of Means


TH_KTTN



Statistic a

df1

df2

Sig.


Welch

1,520

2

13,621

.254


a. Asymptotically F distributed.


Maybe you are interested!


Testing the difference in KTTN implementation according to revenue scale:

The study examined the differences in implementing KTTN at EVN units according to 3 groups of different capital sources: small and micro enterprises, medium-sized enterprises and large-sized enterprises. The analysis results are presented in Table 2.24.

The results in Table 2.16 on the homogeneity of variance test using Levene's test have Sig. = 0.136 > 5%, so it can be concluded that there is no difference in variance between groups of enterprises with different revenue scales in implementing KTTN. Therefore, in this case, the study uses the results of ANOVA analysis of variance to compare the differences between groups of revenue scales.

The ANOVA analysis results in Table 2.24 show that the significance level of the variable TH_KTTN is sig. = 0.988 > 5%. This shows that there is no statistically significant difference in implementing KTTN between groups of enterprises with different revenue scales.

Table 2.24. ANOVA analysis results by capital size


Test of Homogeneity of Variances



TH_KTTN




Levene Statistic


df1


df2


Sig.



2.020

2

143

.136









ANOVA

TH_KTTN


Sum of

Squares


df

Mean

Square


F


Sig.

Between Groups

.012

2

.006

.012

.988

Within Groups

75,373

143

.527



Total

75,386

145










Robust Tests of Equality of Means


TH_KTTN



Statistic a

df1

df2

Sig.


Welch

.016

2

20,501

.984


a. Asymptotically F distributed.



In summary , from the results of regression analysis and one-factor variance analysis, the results of testing the research hypotheses are summarized in Table 2.25 as follows:

Table 2.25. Results of testing research hypotheses


TT

Hypothesis

Result


1


Hypothesis H 1 : There is a difference in implementing KTTN between enterprises of different sizes.


Reject


2


Hypothesis H 2 : Competition in the business industry has a positive impact on the implementation of KTTN in enterprises.


Accept


3


Hypothesis H 3 : Management decentralization in the enterprise structure has a positive impact on the implementation of KTTN in the enterprise.


Accept


4

Hypothesis H 4 : The awareness of KTTN of managers at all levels in the enterprise has a positive impact on the implementation of KTTN in the enterprise.


Accept


5

Hypothesis H 5 : The cost of implementing the KTTN system has a negative impact on the implementation of KTTN in the enterprise.


Reject


6

Hypothesis H 6 : Business strategy of an enterprise has a positive impact on the implementation of KTTN in the enterprise.


Reject

(Source: Author's synthesis from research results)

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *