Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi

MBA (PT) I yr, Semester I, 2016-2017 8102: Quantitative Methods for Management
Assignment – VI – CCACC Case
Submitted By:
Shakher saini, Roll no: S070, South Campus

Descriptive Statistics Data Set 1   Descriptive Statistics Data Set 2

         
Mean 366.03   Mean 370.43
Standard Error 1.32   Standard Error 1.64
Median 365.85   Median 369.75
Mode #N/A   Mode 375.28
Standard Deviation 4.17   Standard Deviation 14.71
Sample Variance 17.35   Sample Variance 216.32
Kurtosis -0.36   Kurtosis -0.41
Skewness 0.51   Skewness 0.05
Range 13.1   Range 71.09
Minimum 360.4   Minimum 337.10
Maximum 373.5   Maximum 408.19
29634.6
Sum 3660.3   Sum 7
Count 10   Count 80.00

Question 1. Do the data collection procedures that the CCAC uses to form its conclusions flawed? What
procedures could the group follow to make its analysis more rigorous?
Answer: Yes the given data collection is flawed because the sample size is small & unsuitable & the samples
might be packed by one particular cereal production line. There might be a possibility that one particular
cereal production line in the plant might have a flaw in its packing system
The investigations should have been carried by an individual agency & company should have taken a large no
of samples & from different cereal production line for the appropriateness of the sample size.

Question 2: What, if any, conclusions can you form by using your calculations about the filling process for the
two different cereals?
Answer: Unless & until an independent agency provides result for all the cereal production lines in different
plant, it would be difficult to comment & conclude anything on the filling process. If found guilty then the
filling process & packing mechanism needs to be checked.

Question 3: A representative from the OXFORD cereals has asked that the CCAC take down its page discussing
shortages in OXFORD cereal boxes. Is that request reasonable? Why, or why not?
Answer: The request by the representative is reasonable because the systematic approach is flawed and it is
unsuitable in terms of the size of sample taken for investigation. Unless reported guilty from an independent
after observation are done appropriately, the CCAC should not publish their own report of shortages in the
boxes of OXFORD. So CCAC should not have criticized the company publically.

Calculation on 80 Sample taken by the company

1
Null Hypothesis: No significant difference in the claim of the company and the average weight found by the
customers.

H0 => 368 (Average weight is more than or equal to 368

grams)
H1 < 368 (Average weight is less than 368 grams)

(x̄= Mean (370.43) , μ = (368) average claimed by (SE = Standard Error of sample = 1.64)
Company)
Z = x̄ - μ
SEx̄

= 370.43 - 368
1.64

= 2.43/1.64
So Zcal = 1.482

Now, the table value of Z at 5% confidence level is 1.64 (From the table of standard normal distribution at
0.4495 (i.e. 0.5-0.05 = 0.45).

So Ztab = 1.64

Because the calculated value of Z is less than the table value

Z (i.e. Zcal (1.482) < Ztab (1.64))

Hence the Null Hypothesis is rejected, which means that the claim of the company is not valid.
The other alternative to check the claim is through defining the intervals, i.e.
SEx̄ = SD/√n
= 14.71/√80
= 1.64
Now, defining the intervals of the standard error at 5% significant level
= x̄ +/- 1.96 X SEx̄
= 370.43 +/-1.96 X 1.64
= 367.22 & 373.65
Through this method, the intervals found are from 367.22 grams to 373.65 grams. The lowest level of this
interval (367.219) is less than the claimed quantity (368) so, the hypothesis is rejected.

Question 1. Are the results of the experiment valid? Why, or why not? If you were conducting the experiment,
is there anything you would change?
Answer: The results of the experiment are not valid because the claim that the boxes are containing over 370
grams is false as the mean intervals are 367.22 to 373.65 .The minimum value of this interval is less than 370
grams.
The data should have been taken from every plant & every cereal production line with suitable sample size to
decide whether the company there is some fault in the packing mechanism or it’s a deliberate act.

2
Questions 2: Do you support the claim that Oxford cereals is not cheating its customers?
Answer: Considering the lower level of the interval one can say they are cheating as being a good company the
accuracy for packing should be 100% or else they need to find out the fault in the production line.
Also the mentioned weight is very near to what they have claimed. So, it does not seem that the company is
cheating its customers, as it is delivering approximate to what they have mentioned on the package.

Questions 3: Could there ever be circumstance in which the results of the Oxford cereals experiment and the
CCACC’s results are both correct? Explain.
Answer: Since the survey is independent and unbiased, with a small sample variations can be large so chances
are that the company is at fault, but with a large sample results do get changed in favor of the company.
This suggests that there might be some problem with the cereal production line that’s needs to be identified &
checked to maintain 100% accuracy in future.