MHRIL

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

3. F&B Production 0.689 3

Quality and Maintenance of
furnishing, linen, toiletries and
4. kitchenware in your Room 0.678 4

Quality and variety of Recreational

Activities, Indoor & Outdoor Games,
5. Evening Entertainment 0.674 5

Quality & Upkeep of the Resort

6. 0.662 6

7. Ease & Speed of Check in 0.570 7

Regression Analysis: Overall Satisfaction versus Resort Hospitality

The regression equation is

Overall Satisfaction = - 0.122 + 1.07 Resort Hospitality, courtesy and
Speed of Service

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -0.12224 0.07516 -1.63 0.110
Resort Hospitality, courtesy an 1.06552 0.09702 10.98 0.000

S = 0.0369411 R-Sq = 70.3% R-Sq(adj) = 69.7%

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

The regression equation is

Overall Satisfaction = - 0.189 + 0.854 Resort Hospitality, courtesy
+ 0.315 F & B Service

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -0.18896 0.07424 -2.55 0.014
Resort Hospitality, courtesy an 0.8536 0.1176 7.26 0.000
F & B Service 0.3150 0.1108 2.84 0.006

S = 0.0346161 R-Sq = 74.4% R-Sq(adj) = 73.4%

Note:-R-Sq increased
Analysis of Variance after addition of F&B
Service hence needed
Source DF SS MS F P and to be included in
Regression 2 0.174272 0.087136 72.72 0.000
the Model
Residual Error 50 0.059914 0.001198
Total 52 0.234186
 Regression Equation after adding all the factors
The regression equation is
Overall Satisfaction = - 0.318 + 0.536 Resort Hospitality, courtesy an
+ 0.157 F & B Service + 0.147 F & B Production
+ 0.007 Quality and Maintenance of furniture
+ 0.127 Quality & Upkeep of resort
+ 0.322 Holiday Activities
+ 0.167 Ease and speed of check in
S = 0.0298622 R-Sq = 82.9% R-Sq(adj) = 80.2%

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.

Ho: Mean of ECS, CC and PDC are same

Ha: At least one of ECS, CC and PDC is not same.

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

S = 7739 R-Sq = 0.93% R-Sq(adj) = 0.59% p value> 0.05,

hence cannot reject
Ho.
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Inference: Mean of
Pooled StDev all instruments are
same.
Level N Mean StDev -----+---------+---------+---------+----
ECS 200 9561 5898 (----------*---------)
CC 200 11008 8187 (----------*----------)
PDC 200 11251 8824 (----------*---------)
-----+---------+---------+---------+----
9000 10000 11000 12000
 Comparative Method: Hypothesis Testing - 2
Suspicion Statement Mean of amount between
branches is different.

Ho: Mean amount between branches is same.

Ha: Mean amount between branches is different

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

S = 7745 R-Sq = 2.77% R-Sq(adj) = 0.44%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on
Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev -------+---------+---------+---------+--
AHD 24 12931 9497 (--------*--------)
BLR-K 17 13376 7893 (---------*----------)
BLR - M 20 14099 9816 (--------*---------)
CHD 54 9707 4881 (-----*-----)
CHE 19 11523 8664 (---------*---------)
Del - B 37 10646 7046 (------*-------)
Del - P 29 9827 5404 (-------*-------)
HYD 17 11689 9606 (---------*----------)
JPR 13 14132 6235 (-----------*-----------)
KCH 24 11258 6027 (--------*--------)
KOL 17 8364 3925 (----------*---------)
LKW 131 9616 9027 (--*---)
Mum - A 88 10509 8510 (----*----)
p value> 0.05, hence
Mum - V 80 10253 7028 (----*----) cannot reject Ho.
PUN 30 10759 6295 (-------*-------)
-------+---------+---------+---------+--
Inference: Mean of all
7000 10500 14000 17500 instruments are same.
Pooled StDev = 7745
 Hypothesis Testing - 3
Suspicion Statement: Instrument default is not same
for all (ECS, CC and PDC)
Ho: Instrument default is same.
Ha: Instrument default is not same for all.

Statistical Statement:
Ho: p(ECS) = p(CC) = p(PDC)
Ha: p(ECS) p(CC) p(PDC)

Test : Chi square test

Chi Square Test: Default versus Instrument
Rows: Ok/ Not ok Columns: PDI Type Type
CC ECS PDC All
ECS> CC> PDC
Not Ok 18 47 31 96
32 32 32 96
-14 15 -1 *
-2.475 2.652 -0.177 *
6.1250 7.0312 0.0312 *
Ok 102 73 89 264
88 88 88 264
14 -15 1 *
1.492 -1.599 0.107 *
2.2273 2.5568 0.0114 * p = 0.00, reject Ho.
Inference: Instrument default is not the
All 120 120 120 360
120 120 120 360 same for all.
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
Cell Contents: Count
Expected count
Residual
Standardized residual
Contribution to Chi-square

Pearson Chi-Square = 17.983, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.000

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 18.298, DF = 2, P-Value = 0.000
 Tractor Service
Y = Complaint resolution time
Proportion of complaints for each category
 Ho: All complaint categories contribute equally to high CCT
Ha: Some complaint categories contribute more than others to high CCT

Tabulated statistics: Category of root Cause, CCT Discrete

Rows: Category of root Cause Columns: CCT Discrete

BAD GOOD All

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 *

All 141 147 288

141.00 147.00 288.00
* * *

Cell Contents: Count

Expected count
Contribution to Chi-square

Pearson Chi-Square = 24.012, DF = 7, P-Value = 0.001

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 25.036, DF = 7, P-Value =
0.001
 Root Causes as per Proportion of complaints for each category

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

Delay in OEM Decisions

Parts not available at Dealership & Key Parts Dealers

Customer Education

Service related delays

 Practical Problem statement

I suspect that complaints coming in week 2 & week 3 of any

month gets resolved in less time as supplies of Spare Parts is
high in week 2 & week 3.
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Complaint Closure time versus Week

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

Complaint Closure time

200
H = 2.32 DF = 3 P = 0.508 (adjusted for ties)
150

100
Since P value is > 0.05, there is no statistically
Significant difference in complaint resolution time 50
among weeks
0

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Week
 Practical Problem statement

I suspect that complaints coming on Saturdays & Sundays take

more time to get resolved as compared to complaints coming
on other week days.
Kruskal-Wallis Test: Complaint Closure time versus Day

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Complaint Closure time Ho: Mmon=Mtues=Mwed=Mthurs=Mfri=Msat=Msun

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

Complaint Closure time

H = 1.18 DF = 6 P = 0.978 (adjusted for200
ties)
150

100
Since P value is >0.05 there is no statistically significant
difference among Complaint closure time of week days 50

Friday Monday Saturday Sunday Thursday Tuesday Wednesday

Day
OEM Tyre Complaint Analysis
Ageing of Complaints
MP

Ageing of Tyre Complaints in MP

Normal

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

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Ageing MP Hypothesis for Median days of complaint ageing in MP

OEM MP N Median Ave Rank Z Ho: Mapollo=Mgoodyear=Mjk tyre=Mmrf

APOLLO 15 37.00 15.7 -1.70
GOODYEAR 9 53.00 20.3 0.24 Ha: Mi Mj
JK TYRE 7 55.00 23.4 1.02
MRF 7 59.00 22.8 0.87
Overall 38 19.5

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

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Ageing MAH

Hypothesis for Median days of complaint ageing in MAH
OEM MAH N Median Ave Rank Z Ho: Mapollo=Mgoodyear=Mjk tyre=Mmrf
APOLLO 5 79.00 16.0 0.62
GOODYEAR 17 67.00 13.6 -0.35 Ha: Mi Mj
JK TYRE 2 66.50 13.5 -0.09
MRF 3 59.00 13.3 -0.15
Overall 27 14.0

H = 0.39 DF = 3 P = 0.942
H = 0.39 DF = 3 P = 0.942 (adjusted for ties)

Boxplot of Ageing MAH

120

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

Hypothesis for Median days of complaint ageing in TN

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Ageing TN
Ho: Mapollo = Mmrf

Ave Ha: Mapollo Mmrf

OEM TN N Median Rank Z
APPOLLO 3 80.00 2.3 -0.45
MRF 1 91.00 3.0 0.45
Overall 4 2.5

Boxplot of Ageing TN

H = 0.20 DF = 1 P = 0.655 100

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

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Ageing AP Hypothesis for Median days of complaint ageing in AP

Ho: Mapollo=Mgoodyear=Mjk tyre=Mmrf

Ave Ha: Mi Mj
OEM AP N Median Rank Z
APOLLO 4 42.50 6.8 -0.42
Good year 2 18.00 2.5 -1.83
JK TYRE 7 80.00 9.1 1.47
MRF 1 57.00 9.0 0.37 Boxplot of Ageing AP
160
Overall 14 7.5
140

120

H = 4.19 DF = 3 P = 0.241 Ageing AP 100

80

60

40

Since P value is > 0.05, 20

there is no significant difference between
0
ageing of complaints APOLLO Good year JK TYRE MRF
among 4 TYRE suppliers. OEM AP
Failure Hrs
Tyre Manufacturer wise Failure % < 500 Hrs for 4 States
MP,MAH,MP,TN
Apollo MRF
No. of cases where No. of cases
tyre failed in less where tyre failed
19 8
than 500 hrs of in less than 500
operation hrs of operation
Total no. of
Total no. of cases 27 12
cases
% of cases
% of cases where
where tyre failed
tyre failed in less 70 67
in less than 500
than 500 hrs
hrs

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

Ho: M AP= M MAH= M MP= M TN

Kruskal-Wallis Test on Failure Hrs
Ha: Mi Mj

State N Median Ave Rank Z Boxplot of Failure Hrs

1200
AP 14 438.0 57.8 1.72
1000
MAH 36 179.5 43.6 -0.83
800
MP 38 175.0 46.2 -0.08

Failure Hrs
600
TN 4 134.0 35.3 -0.86
400

Overall 92 46.5
200

H = 3.65 DF = 3 P = 0.302 AP MAH

State
MP TN

H = 3.65 DF = 3 P = 0.302 (adjusted for ties)

Since P Value >0.05 There is no

statistically significant difference
among Failure hrs in 4 states
 Validation of Xs
S. Xs identified as important from FMEA / Validated Tool Used Remarks
No. CE Matrix (Y/N) (attach
Minitab /
Sigma XL
output)
1 OEM Related delays Y Chi-Square
2 Delay due to lack of Customer Education Y Pareto
3 Week wise complaint resolution time N Kruskal Wallis Test
4 Day wise complaint resolution time N Kruskal-Wallis Test
5 Delay in OEM decision Y Histogram/Kruskal-
Wallis Test
 Tractor
Y= Weekly delivery of Tractors
 Validation of Quick Win

Normally Day off is given in the first I week of the month

to compensate for the work done on the last

Sunday of the previous month to maximize

month Delivery.

- Does it affect the Weekly Delivery of the Next Month?

Week Wise data collected.

Weeks where day off is given Weeks where day off is not given

Month Plan Loss % Month Plan Loss %

Feb Wk1 430 176 40.9 June Wk1 565 136 24.1

Mar Wk 1 435 160 36.8 Jul Wk1 900 94 10.4

April Wk 1 720 252 35.0 Aug Wk1 730 190 26.0

May Wk 1 660 296 44.8 Aug Wk2 590 153 25.9

 Boxplot of Befor Imp, After Imp
300

250

200
Data

150

100

Befor Imp After Imp

Mean of losses is less after Improvement

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Befor Imp, After Imp

Two-sample T for Before Imp vs After Imp

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Befor Imp 4 39.39 4.41 2.2
After Imp 4 21.62 7.50 3.8

Difference = mu (Befor Imp) - mu (After Imp)

Estimate for difference: 17.77
95% CI for difference: (5.69, 29.85)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 4.08 P-Value = 0.015 DF = 4

Since P Value is < 0.05 there is statistically significant

difference in mean delivery losses before & after quick wins.
It means that weekly delivery has improved by maintaining WIP
& by NOT giving Day off in week 1
Inference : Day off in the first week
contributes to
weekly delivery loss.

Action Stop Day off in the I week of the

month.
 D M A I C

Analyze
Not producing tractors results in
Weekly delivery loss.

Analysis of causes of Production loss needs to

be done.

Line stoppage means production stoppage

leading to Production Loss
Function wise Pareto for Line Stoppage Minutes March to July 2009

Pareto Chart of Func

30000 100

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

Material, Production & Stores Contributing to 80% of line Stoppages

Out of which Material contribution is Maximum
Pareto Shows the biggest contributor to
line stoppage is Materials .
Materials flow from different suppliers
located in different locations

Does location of the suppliers have a

trend ANOVA for mean deliveries
from different locations follows
Hypothesis :

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..?

Analysis using regression. follows

 Analysis Divided into 2 Parts

For Exclusive Components For Common Components

 For Exclusive Components

Regression analysis of Delivery % Vs availability %

Delivery % = - 9.261 + 1.013 Availability %

S 12.1617
100
R-Sq 89.4%
R-Sq(adj) 88.5%

80

60
Delivery %

Very Strong Correlation Found.

Need to Identify Vendors who are
40
failing and
work to increase their Delivery %
20

0 20 40 60 80 100
Availability %
Regression Analysis: Delivery % versus Availability %

The regression equation is Ho: No Linear Correlation exists

Delivery % = - 9.261 + 1.013 Availability %
Ha: Linear correlation exists

S = 12.1617 R-Sq = 89.4% R-Sq(adj) = 88.5%

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

Material non availability is the Cause for

Weekly Delivery Loss.
 Which of the suppliers contribute
significantly to Material non Availability

Significance of contribution is done

through CHI SQ.
Hypothesis :

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

Rows: vendor Columns: weekly delivery discrete

Bad Good Missing All

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 * *

Sudtrac Linkages Pvt. Ltd 31 13 0 44

26.82 17.18 * 44.00
0.6506 1.0159 * *

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 * *

All 292 187 * 479

292.00 187.00 * 479.00
Cell Contents: Count * * * *
Expected count
Contribution to Chi-square
Since P Value is < 0.05
there is statistically
significant
Pearson Chi-Square = 40.926, DF = 21, P-Value = 0.006 difference in the delivery
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 42.957, DF = 21, P-Value = 0.003 ratings of the suppliers
Inference :

Different suppliers contribute to delivery loss by not

Supplying material in quantity & time ( as indicated by the
Delivery rating)

Action :

- Identify suppliers failing significantly on delivery based

on the Chi square analysis

- Understand the root cause for such failure & work on

corrective & preventive action.
List of Vendors for exclusive components from Chi square
Contribution to Chi-Suare
Vendor
for BAD
simpson 3.469
DRP 2.3249
rane 1.9009
wheels 1.2172
MRF 1.2032
jyoti microcast 1.0956
Unimech Industries Pvt. L 1.0247
chougale 0.9232
Amrep 0.7219
sandfit 0.7219
Sudtrac Linkages Pvt. Ltd 0.5706
shakti 0.4991
lumax 0.4568
pritika 0.4568
QH talbros 0.3349
BANCO 0.2406
cgn 0.1586
Causes at the vendor which results in
less vendor delivery rating is
analyzed
 Pareto of Causes at Vendors of Exclusive Parts
Pareto Chart of Causes
120
100
100
Frequency

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

Summary for Capacity Issue Suppliers Since P Value is < 0.05

Data is Not Normal
A nderson-Darling Normality Test
A -Squared 4.34
P -V alue < 0.005
M ean 66.806
StDev 26.919
V ariance 724.634
Skew ness -0.904097
Kurtosis 0.183820
N 200
M inimum 0.000
1st Q uartile 50.553
M edian 71.929
3rd Q uartile 88.725
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 M aximum 100.000
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean
63.052 70.560
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
66.451 77.092
95% C onfidence Interv al for StDev
9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
24.514 29.851
Mean

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

N Median Ho: Median Delivery % of Capacity Issue Suppliers =

Median Delivery % of no capacity issue suppliers
Capacity Issue Suppliers 200 71.929
No Capacity Issue Suppliers 200 77.685 Ha: Median Delivery % of Capacity Issue Suppliers
Media Delivery % of no capacity issue suppliers

Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is -4.150

95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (-8.640,0.002)
W = 37872.0
Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0540
The test is significant at 0.0539 (adjusted for ties)

There is a Statistically significant difference between the mean

Delivery % of Capacity Issue Supplier
& No Capacity Issue Suppliers
 Validation of Xs
S. No. Xs identified as important from FMEA / CE Validated (Y/N) Tool Used Remarks (attach Minitab /
Matrix Sigma XL output)
1 Non availability of Material for Production Y Pareto/Chi
-Square
2 Location of Suppliers N Anova
3 Transporters N Anova
4 Material availability for exclusive parts Y Regressio
n
5 Capacity Issue Y Mann
Whitney
6 Suppliers not meeting supply qty. Y Chi-
Square
Test
7 1st week availability of material Y 2 sample
T test /
Quick win