Week 4 Case Study One
bilnag
MAT510_CaseStudy1Example.pptx
Case Study #1 Understanding Process Measurement Variation
MAT510 Business Statistics
Method #1 Table 1.1
| Observation | Measurement |
| 1 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 2 | 6ft. 7-7/8in. |
| 3 | 6ft. 9in. |
| 4 | 6ft. 7-3/4in. |
| 5 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 6 | 6ft. 7-3/4in. |
| 7 | 6ft. 9in. |
| 8 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 9 | 6ft. 8-5/8in. |
| 10 | 6ft. 7-7/8in. |
| Observation | Measurement |
| 11 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 12 | 6ft. 8-5/8in. |
| 13 | 6ft. 8-1/8in. |
| 14 | 6ft. 7-7/8in. |
| 15 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 16 | 6ft. 8in. |
| 17 | 6ft. 8-1/2in. |
| 18 | 6ft. 7-7/8in. |
| 19 | 6ft. 7-5/8in. |
| 20 | 6ft. 8-1/8in. |
Mean and Standard Deviation Group #1
| Group 1 | |
| Observation | Measurement |
| 1 | 80 |
| 2 | 79.875 |
| 3 | 81 |
| 4 | 79.75 |
| 5 | 80 |
| 6 | 79.75 |
| 7 | 81 |
| 8 | 80 |
| 9 | 80.625 |
| 10 | 79.875 |
| 11 | 80 |
| 12 | 80.625 |
| 13 | 80.125 |
| 14 | 79.875 |
| 15 | 80 |
| 16 | 80 |
| 17 | 80.5 |
| 18 | 79.875 |
| 19 | 79.625 |
| 20 | 80.125 |
| Mean | 80.13125 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.400400704 |
Method #1 Flow Chart Vertical Measurement
Measurements written on separate sheets of paper
Data collector compiled information from each participant
Information transferred to table 1.1
Participants completed individual measurements
Provided instructions
Data collector verified 20 measurements had been taken
Assembled people
People were distracted when instructions were being given
Information could have been written incorrectly.
Difficult to find 20 people to participate in this case study.
Opportunities for Improvement (OFI’s) Discovering methods to eliminate or reduce non-value added work (Hoel & Snee, 2012).
Assemble
Assemble all people to complete the case study on the same day versus separate days and times.
Demonstrate
Demonstrate how to use a yard stick to familiarize people with using the tool.
Have
Have participants to measure twice to help ensure accuracy of first measurement.
Maintain
Maintain stability of measuring tool.
Use
Use correct side of the yard stick.
Reduce
Reduce the amount of time it took to complete the case study.
Provide
Provide a unit conversion calculator; calculations were performed on paper.
Use
Use the best device to give the most accurate measurement.
SIPOC Model
Framework for discussing business processes and other processes
“Identifies measurements for improvement” (Hoel & Snee, 2012).
S
Supplier
I
Input
P
Process
O
Output
C
Customers
METHOD #1 SIPOC MODEL
Suppliers and Input
Suppliers
Me (LaToya)-Door
Participants
Lowes (Yardstick)
Target (Pen/Pencil)
Data collector
Input
Directions
Individual measurements
Pen/Pencil
Yardstick
Process
Output and Customer
Output
Individual Measurements
Customer
Me (LaToya)
Data collector
Instructors
Assembled people
Data collector compiled information
Information transferred to Table 1.1
Provided Instructions
Participants completed measurements
Measurements written on paper
Method #2 Table 2.2
| Vertical Observation | Measurement |
| 1 | 6ft. 8 in. |
| 2 | 6ft. 7-3/4 in. |
| 3 | 6ft. 8 in. |
| 4 | 6ft. 8 in. |
| 5 | 6ft. 7-7/8 in. |
| 6 | 6ft. 7-3/4 in. |
| 7 | 6ft. 7-7/8 in. |
| Horizontal Observation | Measurement |
| 8 | 3ft. |
| 9 | 2ft. 11 in. |
| 10 | 3ft. |
| 11 | 3ft. |
| 12 | 3ft. |
| Diagonal Observation | Measurement |
| 13 | 7ft. |
| 14 | 7ft. |
| 15 | 7ft. |
| 16 | 7ft. |
| 17 | 7ft. |
| 18 | 7ft. 2 in. |
| 19 | 7ft. 2 in. |
| 20 | 7ft. 2 in. |
Mean and Standard Deviation Group #2
| Group 2 | |
| Observation | Measurement |
| 1 | 80 |
| 2 | 79.75 |
| 3 | 80 |
| 4 | 80 |
| 5 | 79.75 |
| 6 | 79.75 |
| 7 | 79.875 |
| 8 | 36 |
| 9 | 35 |
| 10 | 36 |
| 11 | 36 |
| 12 | 36 |
| 13 | 84 |
| 14 | 84 |
| 15 | 84 |
| 16 | 84 |
| 17 | 84 |
| 18 | 86 |
| 19 | 86 |
| 20 | 86 |
| Mean | 70.80625 |
| Standard Deviation | 20.85880143 |
Method #2 Flow Chart Various Measurements
Assemble participants
Provided instructions
Participants completed measurements
Wrote measurements on paper
Data collector gathered information
Data collector verified all results had been submitted.
Results written on one piece of paper
Information transferred to table.
Opportunities for Improvement (OFI’s) “Making significant improvement to business processes” (Hoel & Snee, 2012).
Demonstrate how to use a tape measure to help achieve precision and accuracy.
Maintain stability of measuring tool.
Double check initial measurement to ensure accuracy.
Always use the tool that will yield the more precise/accurate result.
Eliminate common cause variations
Reduce the number of participants from 20 to 10.
Allow participants to measure any door for both observations
Redesign the case study to allow participants to text or email results
METHOD #1 SIPOC MODEL
Suppliers and Input
Suppliers
Me (LaToya)-Door
Participants
Target (Tape Measure)
Target (Pen/Pencil)
Data collector
Input
Directions
Measurements
Pen/Pencil
Tape Measure
Process
Output and Customer
Output
Individuals Measurements
Customer
Me (LaToya)
Data collector
Instructors
Assembled people
Data collector compiled information
Information transferred to Table 1.1
Provided Instructions
Participants completed measurements
Measurements written on paper
COMMOM & SPECIAL CAUSE VARIATIONS
METHOD#1w/ Yardstick
Common cause
Inaccuracies in measurements.
Yardstick not long enough to cover the distance of the door.
Yardstick had to be moved several times to get complete measurement.
Reading yardstick incorrectly.
Special Cause
Performance/Experience
About 3 people were not comfortable with using a yardstick; didn’t know how to use it.
Unable to add measurements correctly.
Poor manufacturing of yardstick.
Possible errors when converting information for the Excel Spreadsheet.
METHOD #2 w/ Tape Measure
Common cause
Inaccuracies in measurements.
Reading tape measure incorrectly.
Special Cause
Performance/Experience
About 3 people were not comfortable with using a tape measure; didn’t know how to use it.
A few people gave measurements that included a portion of the door frame.
Metal rivet wasn’t properly secured when measuring.
Poor manufacturing of tape measure, not properly calibrated.
Possible errors when converting information for the Excel Spreadsheet.
Discussions and Recommendation
Here’s what people had to say:
Instructions were easy to understand.
“Make sure everyone understands to only measure the door and not the frame.”
“I was never good at measurements in school and in life (now); therefore, I didn’t want to participant out of fear of measuring incorrectly. “Happy to help.”
Some participants thought it was more difficult to add the measurements when using the yardstick.
“Use one tool either the yardstick or tape measure, but not both.”
Provide a tutorial or demonstration of how to measure using the yard stick and tape measure.
Tape measure was more accurate
Participants were able to handle the tape measure better than the yardstick.
Easier to find measurements because yardstick only goes up to 3ft.
More efficient.
Can get one reading using the tape measure versus using the yardstick where each person had to position the yardstick and mark the door before repositioning.
Are the Differences Important?
For many participants, the differences in measurements didn’t matter to them. In their eyes, it was just my homework assignment. In reality, differences in the measurements do matter when wood, cloth, pipes, and other materials have to be cut to fit a specific area. Proper measurements are also beneficial when determining how much material will be needed and to help estimate the overall cost of a project.
References
Hoel, R., & Snee, R. (2012). Statistcal Thinking. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
