Business Statistics Chapter 4
Description: w04a1 Case Study 1: Understanding Process Measurement Variation
| Unacceptable | Needs Improvement | Competent | Exemplary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compare the accuracy and precision of the two methods using graphical and analytical methods. Develop a flow chart for each method in which you specify the key problems that might be present. Develop the supplier, input, process steps, output, and customer (SIPOC) model to analyze the process of both methods. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 24.84 (13.80%) Did not develop or incompletely developed the flow chart for each method in which you specify the key problems that might be present. Did not develop or incompletely developed the supplier, input, process steps, output, and customer (SIPOC) model to analyze the process of both methods. |
Points Range:25.2 (14.00%) – 28.44 (15.80%) Partially developed the flow chart for each method in which you specify the key problems that might be present. Partially developed the supplier, input, process steps, output, and customer (SIPOC) model to analyze the process of both methods. |
Points Range:28.8 (16.00%) – 32.04 (17.80%) Satisfactorily developed the flow chart for each method in which you specify the key problems that might be present. Satisfactorily developed the supplier, input, process steps, output, and customer (SIPOC) model to analyze the process of both methods. |
Points Range:32.4 (18.00%) – 36 (20.00%) Thoroughly developed the flow chart for each method in which you specify the key problems that might be present. Thoroughly developed the supplier, input, process steps, output, and customer (SIPOC) model to analyze the process of both methods. |
| Analyze the flow chart and SIPOC model to identify opportunity for improvement (OFI). Next, categorize whether the OFI are caused by special causes or common causes variations. Provide a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 24.84 (13.80%) Did not submit or incompletely analyze the flow chart and SIPOC model to identify opportunity for improvement (OFI). Did not submit or incompletely categorize whether the OFI are caused by special causes or common causes variations. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:25.2 (14.00%) – 28.44 (15.80%) Partially analyzed the flow chart and SIPOC model to identify opportunity for improvement (OFI). Partially categorized whether the OFI are caused by special causes or common causes variations. Partially provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:28.8 (16.00%) – 32.04 (17.80%) Satisfactorily analyzed the flow chart and SIPOC model to identify opportunity for improvement (OFI). Satisfactorily categorized whether the OFI are caused by special causes or common causes variations. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:32.4 (18.00%) – 36 (20.00%) Thoroughly analyzed the flow chart and SIPOC model to identify opportunity for improvement (OFI). Thoroughly categorized whether the OFI are caused by special causes or common causes variations. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response. |
| Discuss the feelings of the two groups about the two methods. Discuss the differences between the two sets of feelings. Are these differences important? Provide a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 24.84 (13.80%) Did not discuss or incompletely discussed the feelings of the two groups about the two methods. Did not discuss or incompletely discussed the differences between the two sets of feelings. Did not provide an answer or incompletely provided an answer to the question: Are these differences important? Did not provide or incompletely provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:25.2 (14.00%) – 28.44 (15.80%) Partially discussed the feelings of the two groups about the two methods. Partially discussed the differences between the two sets of feelings. Partially provided an answer to the question: Are these differences important? Partially provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:28.8 (16.00%) – 32.04 (17.80%) Satisfactorily discussed the feelings of the two groups about the two methods. Satisfactorily discussed the differences between the two sets of feelings. Satisfactorily provided an answer to the question: Are these differences important? Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:32.4 (18.00%) – 36 (20.00%) Thoroughly discussed the feelings of the two groups about the two methods. Thoroughly discussed the differences between the two sets of feelings. Thoroughly provided an answer to the question: Are these differences important? Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response. |
| Select the method that was the most accurate. Provide a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 24.84 (13.80%) Did not select or incompletely selected the method that was the most accurate. Did not provide or incompletely provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:25.2 (14.00%) – 28.44 (15.80%) Partially selected the method that was the most accurate. Partially provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:28.8 (16.00%) – 32.04 (17.80%) Satisfactorily selected the method that was the most accurate. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response. |
Points Range:32.4 (18.00%) – 36 (20.00%) Thoroughly selected the method that was the most accurate. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response. |
| Integrate two references. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6.21 (3.45%) No references provided and sources are rarely integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, or lack in-text citations. |
Points Range:6.3 (3.50%) – 7.11 (3.95%) Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices and/or sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, along with in-text citations. |
Points Range:7.2 (4.00%) – 8.01 (4.45%) References are mostly relevant sources of fair quality and are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, along with in-text citations. |
Points Range:8.1 (4.50%) – 9 (5.00%) References are highly relevant, high quality sources and are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing, along with in-text citations. |
| Complete presentation requirements. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6.21 (3.45%) Presentation does not have 8 slides in addition to a cover slide and a reference slide. There is no consistent theme or design and slides are difficult to read. |
Points Range:6.3 (3.50%) – 7.11 (3.95%) Presentation does not have 8 slides in addition to a cover slide and a reference slide and/or there is no consistent theme or design in the presentation. Some slides may be difficult to read. |
Points Range:7.2 (4.00%) – 8.01 (4.45%) Presentation includes at least 8 slides in addition to a cover slide and a reference slide. There is a theme or design throughout the presentation but some slides may contain too much information to be easily read. |
Points Range:8.1 (4.50%) – 9 (5.00%) Presentation includes 8 or more slides in addition to a cover slide and a reference slide. There is a consistent theme or design throughout and all slides are easy to read. |
| Writing and support for ideas. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6.21 (3.45%) Rarely uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. |
Points Range:6.3 (3.50%) – 7.11 (3.95%) Partially uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. |
Points Range:7.2 (4.00%) – 8.01 (4.45%) Mostly uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. |
Points Range:8.1 (4.50%) – 9 (5.00%) Consistently uses reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. |
| Writing, grammar, and mechanics. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6.21 (3.45%) Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Points Range:6.3 (3.50%) – 7.11 (3.95%) Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Points Range:7.2 (4.00%) – 8.01 (4.45%) Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Points Range:8.1 (4.50%) – 9 (5.00%) Free of errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
Description:w04a1 Case Study 1: Understanding Process Measurement
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more