Group Discussion Board 5
Samantha Roth Nuckles
A lighting company seeks to study the percentage of defective glass shells being manufactured. Theoretically, the percentage of defectives is dependent on temperature, humidity, and the level of artisan expertise. Complete historical data are available for the following variables on a daily basis for a year:
a) Temperature (high, normal, low)
b) Humidity (high, normal, low)
C) Artisan expertise level (high, normal, low).
Some experts feel that defectives also depend on production supervisors. However, data on supervisors in charge are available for only 242 of the 365 days. How should this study be conducted?
Given the scenario listed above, the study being conducted would be geared towards manufacturing processes as well as certain quality control investigations. Since the text question did not provide very many facts, there are some basic assumptions that will need to be made. I would conduct this study in two separate parts, the first being an analysis on previously existing data; and the second piece of the study I would gear towards focus groups based off of the analysis results. From there, based on the findings from both studies, any corrective actions or even recommendations can be enforced by the decision makers.
According to the text, “Data analysis usually involves reducing accumulated to a manageable size, developing summaries, looking for patterns, and applying statistical techniques” (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). In this particular case, the data has already been retrieved. Oftentimes, raw data can be rather challenging to work with and therefore needs to be refined and then portrayed in a useful manner. This raw data is also known as primary data because, in this case it is direct measurements associated with the issue being studied (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Based on the information, I would also recommend portraying the data into graphs based on each variable that is to be considered. These include, but are not limited to the following: temperature, humidity, and expertise level. By sing the data that has already been collected, graphs and charts can then be constructed to show the various numbers of defective glass units that are made in each variable setting.
While I may not have knowledge on all the necessary data to be able to make an accurate graph, I believe that most defects can take place when there is not a controlled temperature or level of humidity. “The main reason for shrinkage is the different thermal expansions of mold and glass materials during forming and cooling, many other factors such as uneven cooling speed and stress relaxation affect molding process and thus lead to complex form deviation in final geometry” (Dambon, Wang, & Klocke, 2009). In this particular case, both temperature and humidity happen to be important variables to consider. From here, I would deduce that the manufacturing plant may simply be an uncontrolled environment; otherwise meaning that the climate within the factory is not being controlled.
Once the initial analysis of data is complete, I would then recommend this information and any charts or graphs produced, would be shared with those in charge. The reasoning for this would overall be to reduce the defects in the glass manufacturing. Since focus groups tend to consist of a trained moderator as well as several other participants (Cooper & Schindler, 2014), it may be best to include the personnel that works closest with the machinery. Bringing these particular employees into a focus group will allow conversations on concerns and even ideas be brought to light. People closest to the process can often share facts and conditions with researchers that will verify or cause to doubt the primary data (O’Neil, 2013). These particular employees may have valuable insight as to what may help as well as what may be hurting production.
In conclusion, I would recommend that conducting the study into two separate parts would give opportunities to be able to not only collect the impertinent data, but also to gather essential staff members to decide on the best plan of action for fixing the defects and issues at hand. Another wide concern would also be the overall cost of the defective glass. When combining the cost of labor, the cost of materials, and even calculating the overall customer satisfaction, it is imperative for businesses not to be at a high loss in terms of defective products. Management would then want to decide which route would be more beneficial to the business. The cost of fixing the climate issue however, would more than likely not outweigh the cost of the defected and scrapped materials.
From a biblical standpoint, even in business it can be hard to make important decisions in fear of making the wrong choice. On one hand, the business could control the climate and may end up still producing defective materials; however, if the company decides to continue without making changes, they are still losing profits for the defective glass. Proverbs 16: 1-5 tells us, “The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit. Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established. The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished” (ESV). These collective verses show us that even when we make decisions and give change a chance, the Lord is actually the one that is guiding us along these transitions. God does not simply aid in the plans we create, He breathes life into us and from there we begin our changes and strive to be better. No matter if it is in the business realm, or everyday life, God is there with us for a reason, and is giving us a better purpose.
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2014). Business Research Methods 12ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dambon, O., Wang, F., & Klocke, F. (2009). Efficient mold manufacturing for precision glass molding. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology 27(3), 1445-1449.
O’Neil, E. H. (2013). Collaboration – for whose benefit? Journal of Nursing Education 52(2), 67.68.
Click following link to download this document
BUSI 600 D05 Group Discussion Board 5.docx