Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Y = Overall PHF
Multiple Regression of Post Holiday
Feedback Scores
Priority ranking of Independent Variable
Correlation
S/No Independent Variable Priority Ranking
coefficient
Resort Hospitality, courtesy and
1. responsiveness of the staff 0.838 1
Restaurants and Room Service -
2. Courtesy of staff , speed of service 0.689 2
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.16459 0.16459 120.61 0.000
Residual Error 51 0.06960 0.00136
Total 52 0.23419
Regression Analysis: Overall Sati versus Resort Hospitality F & B Service
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 7 0.194057 0.027722 31.09 0.000
Residual Error 45 0.040129 0.000892
Total 52 0.234186
MHRIL
Y = Payment discrepancies
Comparative Method: Hypothesis Testing - 1
Suspicion Statement Mean of alteast 1 payment
instrument is different.
Statistical Statement:
Ho: (ECS) = (CC) = (PDC)
Ha: (ECS) (CC) (PDC)
Test : Annova
One-way ANOVA: ECS, CC, PDC
Source DF SS MS F P
Factor 2 34022848 167011424 2.79 0.062
Error 597 35755932909 59892685
Total 599 36089955757
Statistical Statement:
Ho: (branch1) = (branch2) (branch n)
Ha: (branch1) (branch2). (branch n)
Test : Annova
One-way ANOVA: Default amt versus Branch
Source DF SS MS F P
Branch 14 998501638 71321546 1.19 0.279 P>0.05, cannot reject Ho.
Error 585 35091454118 59985392
Total 599 36089955757
Statistical Statement:
Ho: p(ECS) = p(CC) = p(PDC)
Ha: p(ECS) p(CC) p(PDC)
Comm. 13 14 27
13.22 13.78 27.00
0.0036 0.0035 *
Customer Busy 5 4 9
4.41 4.59 9.00
0.0800 0.0767 *
Customer Education 19 16 35
17.14 17.86 35.00
0.2029 0.1946 *
Engine 19 11
30
14.69 15.31
30.00
1.2662 1.2145
*
OEM 14 5
19
9.30 9.70
19.00
2.3726 2.2758
*
Parts 55 48
103
50.43 52.57
103.00
0.4147 0.3978
*
Service 1 2 3
1.47 1.53 3.00
0.1496 0.1435 *
Contribut
ion to Chi
Root Cause
-Square
as BAD
OEM Related Delays selected
OEM 2.3726 Taking proportion of complaints
Not in Project Scope Engine 1.2662 for each category as parameter
Parts 0.4147
Customer Confirmed through pareto,
0.2029 Already selected taking % of
Education complaints closed>3 days parameter
Service 0.1496
Customer Busy 0.08
Comm. 0.0036
Summary of Root Causes
Customer Education
Ho: Mweek1=Mweek2=Mweek3=Mweek4
Kruskal-Wallis Test on Complaint Closure time
Ha: MiMj
Week N Median Ave Rank Z
Week 1 19 3.000 29.7 -0.08
Week 2 8 5.000 24.1 -1.05
Week 3 11 4.000 27.4 -0.56
Week 4 21 24.000 33.9 1.29
Boxplot of Complaint Closure time
Overall 59 30.0 300
250
H = 2.29 DF = 3 P = 0.514
100
Since P value is > 0.05, there is no statistically
Significant difference in complaint resolution time 50
among weeks
0
Ha: MiMj
Day N Median Ave Rank Z
Friday 9 5.000 27.4 -0.50
Monday 6 4.000 30.3 0.04
Saturday 7 3.000 28.5 -0.25
Sunday 5 5.000 28.7 -0.18
Thursday 13 26.000 33.3 0.78
Tuesday 11 3.000 27.7 -0.50
Wednesday 8 24.500 32.8 0.49
Boxplot of Complaint Closure time
Overall 59 30.0 300
250
H = 1.17 DF = 6 P = 0.978
100
Since P value is >0.05 there is no statistically significant
difference among Complaint closure time of week days 50
Mean 60.18
12
StDev 32.10
N 38
10
8
Frequency
0
0 40 80 120 160
Ageing MP
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Ageing MP versus OEM MP
H = 3.25 DF = 3 P = 0.354
H = 3.26 DF = 3 P = 0.353 (adjusted for ties)
Boxplot of Ageing MP
Since P value is > 0.05, 160
there is no significant difference between
140
ageing of complaints
120
among 4 TYRE suppliers.
Ageing MP
100
80
60
40
20
APOLLO GOODYEAR JK TYRE MRF
OEM MP
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Ageing MAH versus OEM MAH
H = 0.39 DF = 3 P = 0.942
H = 0.39 DF = 3 P = 0.942 (adjusted for ties)
110
Since P value is > 0.05, 100
there is no significant difference between 90
ageing of complaints Ageing MAH 80
among 4 TYRE suppliers. 70
60
50
40
30
APOLLO GOODYEAR JK TYRE MRF
OEM MAH
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Ageing TN versus OEM TN
Boxplot of Ageing TN
90
Ageing TN
Since P value is > 0.05,
80
there is no significant difference between
ageing of complaints
Between 2 TYRE suppliers. 70
60
APPOLLO MRF
OEM TN
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Ageing AP versus OEM AP
120
80
60
40
Goodyear JK Tyre
No. of cases where No. of cases
tyre failed in less where tyre failed
23 11
than 500 hrs of in less than 500
operation hrs of operation
Total no. of
Total no. of cases 29 16
cases
% of cases
% of cases where
where tyre failed
tyre failed in less 79 69
in less than 500
than 500 hrs
hrs
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Failure Hrs versus State
Hypothesis for Median Failure Hours of tyres in 4 states
Failure Hrs
600
TN 4 134.0 35.3 -0.86
400
Overall 92 46.5
200
month Delivery.
Weeks where day off is given Weeks where day off is not given
Feb Wk1 430 176 40.9 June Wk1 565 136 24.1
250
200
Data
150
100
Analyze
Not producing tractors results in
Weekly delivery loss.
25000
80
20000
Percent
60
Total
15000
40
10000
5000 20
0 0
Func TL N R C T) r
M PD ST Q NT IN the
M ( O
P
S TO
A N
PL
Total 16646 3176 2875 2623 2558 877 1045
Percent 55.9 10.7 9.6 8.8 8.6 2.9 3.5
Cum % 55.9 66.5 76.2 85.0 93.6 96.5 100.0
Null : Suppliers are situated in different parts of the country, there is no delay
in the planned delivery time resulting in no material for production
Alternate : Suppliers are situated in different parts of the country, there is delay
in the planned delivery time resulting in no material for production
One way ANOVA for location
Since P Value is greater than 0.05
There is no statistically significant
difference in the mean deliveries of locations
Inference :Supplier Location is the not
the cause of material non availability.
Does non availability of Materials in the plant
cause Weekly delivery Loss..?
S 12.1617
100
R-Sq 89.4%
R-Sq(adj) 88.5%
80
60
Delivery %
0 20 40 60 80 100
Availability %
Regression Analysis: Delivery % versus Availability %
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 13757.8 13757.8 93.02 0.000
Error 11 1627.0 147.9
Total 12 15384.8
Since P Value is < 0.05 & R square is 89.4% there is a Strong Positive Co relationship between
% Delivery & % Availability for Exclusive components
Inference
Null :
All Suppliers have equal delivery rating and hence contribute equally to
material non availability
Alternate :
All Suppliers do not have equal delivery rating and hence contribute unequally
to material non availability
Vendors Identified Through Chi-Square Test
Tabulated statistics: vendor, weekly delivery discrete
AIW 10 5 0 15
9.14 5.86 * 15.00
0.0801 0.1251 * *
Brakes India 26 18 0 44
26.82 17.18 * 44.00
0.0252 0.0394 * *
CGN 15 7 0 22
13.41 8.59 * 22.00
0.1882 0.2939 * *
chougale 10 12 0 22
13.41 8.59 * 22.00
0.8677 1.3549 * *
DRP 6 12 0 18
10.97 7.03 * 18.00
2.2537 3.5191 * *
Good Year 15 9 0 24
14.63 9.37 * 24.00
0.0093 0.0146 * *
jyoti microcast 8 1 0 9
5.49 3.51 * 9.00
1.1516 1.7982 * *
lumax 14 5 0 19
11.58 7.42 * 19.00
0.5046 0.7879 * *
mangala 9 6 0 15
9.14 5.86 * 15.00
0.0023 0.0035 * *
MRF 5 0 0 5
3.05 1.95 * 5.00
1.2501 1.9520 * *
nelcast 9 7 0 16
9.75 6.25 * 16.00
0.0582 0.0909 * *
NELCAST LIMITED 9 6 1 15
9.14 5.86 * 15.00
0.0023 0.0035 * *
pritika 14 5 0 19
11.58 7.42 * 19.00
0.5046 0.7879 * *
QH talbros 13 5 0 18
10.97 7.03 * 18.00
0.3745 0.5848 * *
rane 6 11 0 17
10.36 6.64 * 17.00
1.8371 2.8686 * *
Rane 13 8 0 21
12.80 8.20 * 21.00
0.0031 0.0048 * *
shakti 6 7 0 13
7.92 5.08 * 13.00
0.4675 0.7300 * *
simpson 4 12 0 16
9.75 6.25 * 16.00
3.3941 5.2998 * *
tmtl 4 2 0 6
3.66 2.34 * 6.00
0.0320 0.0500 * *
Unimech Industries Pvt. L 55 23 0 78
47.55 30.45 * 78.00
1.1676 1.8231 * *
wheels 10 13 0 23
14.02 8.98 * 23.00
1.1531 1.8006 * *
Action :
80 80
Percent
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Causes y re FE r er
cit em a r ts re .D lie
a ilu A bl P i lu B p th
p a tT r o ng Fa hine Sup O
C a ty/ F p a P i r
se a ci u r ia
l
iti
s
uye Mac at
u p p e r B e
Ho C a a m at p ri o m
issu
n R M a
I or el w r
li e E T
e
lit
y
e ss a ct d R a p a
r o p
L
nt M Su Qu
C o
u b
S
Frequency 24 22 21 9 8 6 6 6 3
Percent 22.9 21.0 20.0 8.6 7.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 2.9
Cum % 22.9 43.8 63.8 72.4 80.0 85.7 91.4 97.1 100.0
Comparing % Weekly Deliveries of Supplier by dividing them into Capacity
Issue & No Capacity issue Suppliers
Median
64 66 68 70 72 74 76
Summary for No Capacity Issue Suppliers
Since P Value < 0.05
A nderson-Darling Normality Test
Data is Not Normal
A -Squared 5.44
P -V alue < 0.005
M ean 71.446
StDev 25.727
V ariance 661.871
Skew ness -1.06989
Kurtosis 0.66732
N 200
M inimum 0.000
1st Q uartile 56.105
M edian 77.685
3rd Q uartile 91.335
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 M aximum 100.000
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean
67.858 75.033
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
73.227 81.876
95% C onfidence Interv al for StDev
9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
23.428 28.529
Mean
Median
70 75 80
Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Capacity Issue Suppliers, No Capacity Issue Suppliers