Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
v
Hi-Sport is a tiny firm that makes sports coats with logos. Excellent quality has always been a priority for the organization. This has mostly been accomplished by meticulous examination, a process known as “inspecting the quality in.” As a result, the firm’s final inspection reject rate has always been high. As a result, too many jackets have been destroyed or sold as “seconds” at a discount. It has also resulted in a significant number of defective jackets slipping through inspection and landing in the hands of buyers. The result has been a shaky customer reputation and prices that are too exorbitant to compete with imports or large American manufacturers. Management tried everything it could to persuade the production workers to do a better job, but it appeared that all of their efforts to eliminate mistakes were futile. It looked that sometimes the best of intentions and good ideas just made things worse. The managers hired a manufacturing consultant with experience in statistics and process control a few weeks ago. He advised them to focus on getting their processes under control initially. They began their program with the consultant’s assistance by identifying and removing many unique reasons of variation. Machines that needed repair and calibration, some staff with insufficient training, and the lack of documented work instructions for specific tasks were among the special factors. Hi-quality Sport’s has clearly increased by the six-week point. It was deemed by management that it was time to try the creation of a control chart. The managers wanted a control chart that could respond to nonmeasurable features because rejects were based on pass/fail criteria for numerous characteristics. The p-chart, np-chart, and c-chart are three frequent charts that fit this condition. The p-chart could aid in reducing the number of defective jackets. The np-chart might be useful in reducing the amount of defective jackets. The c-chart may be useful in reducing the amount of flaws in a jacket. They determined that the c-chart would provide them with what they needed, which was to use one jacket as a sample and track the flaws detected in it. One jacket was reviewed every hour for 30 consecutive working hours for the initial chart-development data. The information is provided in the table below. The information was organized into the five most prevalent defect kinds, with a sixth column containing all other types of flaws found. At the end of the 30th hour, the 30 jacket samples had yielded 46 total faults.
Control Chart from Hi-Sport as a Spc Exercise
You’re the consultant, and because this is Hi-first Sport’s foray into control charts, you’ll have to assist it in its creation. Calculate c, UCL(c), and LCL from the data table (c).
Create a control chart next. Allow for some “headroom” above the upper control limit to account for any out-of-limit occurrences that may occur. Make the chart long enough horizontally to include all of the data points in the table, as well as a few additional days of real-time data points as SPC tracking begins.
Now, on the chart, plot the necessary data from the table. Is the process under control, or are there any lingering specific causes? What are your options now? Complete your assignment by either (a) presenting Hi-Sport with a control chart that depicts an in-control process or (b) discarding the current data and starting over by identifying the particular causes that impeded success the first time around.
Pepsi Company Quality Management Discussion Paper
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Pepsi Company Quality Management Discussion Paper |
Pepsi Company Quality Management Discussion Paper