Region

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Quality

Ease of Use

4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
3

Price

1
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
5
4
4
1
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
5
3
4
4
5
4
4

Service

3
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
1
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
5
2
3
2
4
4
2
5
5
4
5
3
1
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
3
1
5
3

4
5
3
4
4
5
2
5
5
5
4
4
3
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
4

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
5
4
3
1
4
5
4
5
5
4
5

4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
2
4
5
5
5
5
5
2
4

2
4
3
4
4
4
1
5
3
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
3
4
5
5
4
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
5
1
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
5

4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
2
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

5
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
4
1
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5

4
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
1
5
4
4
4
5
5

5
4
5
5
4
5
3
2
5
4
5
3
2
5
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
2
4
5
2
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4

4
3
5
3
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
1
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
4

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur
Eur

4
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
5
4
4
5
2
5
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
3
5
3
4
4
4
5

2
4
4
4
1
4
5
2
3
4
5
4
4
3
1
4
5
4
5
1
5
5
5
5
4
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
5
4

4
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
5
5
1
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
2
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3

Eur
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
Pac
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China

5
5
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
2

4
4
5
4
3
4
4
5
2
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3

1
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2

5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
5
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1

Anova: Single Factor

Table 1
SUMMARY
Groups
Quality
Ease of Use
Price
Service

Count
200
200
200
200

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups

SS
55.505
621.65

Total

677.155

Figure 1

Sum
Average
879
4.395
833
4.165
734
3.67
828
4.14

df

MS
3 18.50167
796 0.780967
799

Variance
0.581884
0.610829
1.136784
0.794372

F
23.6907

P-value
F crit
0.0000 2.616089

Null Hypothesis,Ho:
Alternative Hypothesis,Ha:

There is no significant difference in the rating of specific product/attri

The rating of specific product/attributes differs in the 2014 customer

Symbol
Ho:
(quality)=(ease of use)=(Price)=(Service)
Ha:
(quality)(ease of use)(Price)(Service)
Decision:
Reject Ho if the p-value<0.05

or if F-value>Fcritical,then reject Ho

Significance level =0.05

ANOVA STEPS:FIGURE 1

Using P-value approach

Decision As the p-value from table 1 is 0.0000 which is less than 0.05 therefore we will re

g of specific product/attributes in the 2014 customer survey worksheet.

rs in the 2014 customer survey worksheet.

0.05 therefore we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the mean rating differs in the 2014 cusomte

ers in the 2014 cusomter survey

Month
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
Aug-11
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
Jun-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
Jan-13
Feb-13
Mar-13
Apr-13
May-13
Jun-13
Jul-13

Number of deliveries

Number On Time

1086
1101
1116
1216
1183
1176
1198
1205
1223
1209
1198
1243
1220
1241
1237
1258
1262
1227
1243
1281
1272
1295
1298
1318
1281
1320
1352
1336
1291
1342
1352
1377
1385
1356
1362
1349
1386
1358
1371
1362
1350
1381
1392

Percent

1069
1080
1089
1199
1168
1160
1181
1189
1210
1194
1180
1223
1201
1224
1217
1242
1246
1212
1227
1264
1254
1278
1281
1296
1264
1304
1334
1320
1276
1326
1337
1360
1368
1338
1346
1333
1371
1342
1356
1348
1338
1366
1378

98.4%
98.1%
97.6%
98.6%
98.7%
98.6%
98.6%
98.7%
98.9%
98.8%
98.5%
98.4%
98.4%
98.6%
98.4%
98.7%
98.7%
98.8%
98.7%
98.7%
98.6%
98.7%
98.7%
98.3%
98.7%
98.8%
98.7%
98.8%
98.8%
98.8%
98.9%
98.8%
98.8%
98.7%
98.8%
98.8%
98.9%
98.8%
98.9%
99.0%
99.1%
98.9%
99.0%

Aug-13
Sep-13
Oct-13
Nov-13
Dec-13
Jan-14
Feb-14
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14

1371
1402
1384
1399
1369
1401
1388
1395
1412
1403
1415
1426
1431
1445
1425
1413
1456

1359
1387
1370
1377
1357
1390
1376
1385
1401
1392
1402
1415
1420
1426
1414
1403
1427

99.1%
98.9%
99.0%
98.4%
99.1%
99.2%
99.1%
99.3%
99.2%
99.2%
99.1%
99.2%
99.2%
98.7%
99.2%
99.3%
98.0%

Column1

Column2

Column3
2010
2014
Number on time
13942
16851
Number of delivery
14154
17010
Proportion of on time delivery
0.9850
0.9907
p2-hat
p1-hat
Null Hypothesis,Ho:
The propotion of on time delivery in 2014 is equal to proportion o
Alternative Hypothesis,Ha:
The proportion of on time delivery in 2014 is greater than propoti
Symbol of Null and Alternative Hypothesis
Ho
p(2014)=p(2010)
,p1=p2
Ha
p(2014)>p(2010)
p1>p2
p is the proportion of on time delivery
Significance level,alpha
Upper critical value
Decision

0.05
1.6449
Reject Ho if the p-value is less than 0.05

Difference in two proportion

0.0056

Average proportion,p-bar

0.9881

z-statistic

p-value
Decision
Conclude

p1-p2

4.5631457665

0.0000

1-NORM.S.DIST(H23,TRUE)

Reject the null hypothesis

The proportion of on time delivery has significantly improved from

is equal to proportion of ontime delivery in 2010.

4 is greater than propotion in 2010.

IST(H23,TRUE)

nificantly improved from 2010 to 2014

Defects per million items received from suppliers

Month

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

812
810
813
823
832
848
837
831
827
838
826
819

828
832
847
839
832
840
849
857
839
842
828
816

824
836
818
825
804
812
806
798
804
713
705
686

682
695
692
686
673
681
696
688
671
645
617
603

571
575
547
542
532
496
472
460
441
445
438
436

2010
826.33

2011
837.42

2012
785.92

2013
669.08

2014
496.25

Year
Average

Line Chart of Average Defects per million items

Average defects per million

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

The above line chart shows that the average defects decreases over year.
Null Hypothesis:
Alternative Hypothesis:

Ho:

Significance level

1=2
Ha

12

0.05

Decision Criteria

Reject Ho if the p-value is less than significance level of 0.05.

Using Data analysis tool pack

T-test for independent sample
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
2010
2014
Mean
826.3333
496.25
Variance
135.3333 2940.023
Observations
12
12
Pooled Variance
1537.678
Hypothesized Mean Differe
0
df
22
t Stat
20.619
P(T<=t) one-tail
0.0000
t Critical one-tail
1.717144
P(T<=t) two-tail
7.04E-016
t Critical two-tail
2.0739

Test statistic
P-value
Decision
Conclusion

20.6190
0

Reject the null as the p-value is less than 0.05

The average defect per million has changed significantly over the past 5 ye

nce level of 0.05.

y over the past 5 year.