For This Assignment You Will Need To Conduct An Experiment

For This Assignment You Will Need To Conduct An Experiment Then Creat

For this assignment, you will need to conduct an experiment then create visuals that will be placed within a PowerPoint presentation to present your findings. Your presentation should be easy to read and have a consistent design theme throughout. Please view the first four chapters in the following Lynda.com course on PowerPoint Essentials before creating your presentation. PowerPoint2019 Essentials Training

Read the following experimental variation scenario: To help you learn about measurement variation, try this experiential learning exercise. (We are indebted to Alan Goodman, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware, for bringing this exercise to our attention.) You have started a new business providing height measurements of humans.

Your customers expect accurate and precise measurements. You offer two methods of measurement: (1) a yardstick or a meter stick, and (2) a tape measure. You need to test the two methods to evaluate their performance and provide the results to your customers.

For this experiment you will need the following tools: A yardstick or meter stick, a tape measure, access to an entrance door that is 6 feet or taller, and a group of 20 or more people (they do not have to be gathered at the same time, but it should be 20 different people that participate).

You will test Method 1 in this way: Identify a group of 20 or more people. You will ask the group to measure the height of the entrance door that is approximately 6 feet or taller. Be sure that the entrance door is the same for each member of the group. Each person will measure the height of the door using the yardstick or meter stick and will silently report the measurement to you or a designated data collector. You will then tabulate the data and plot each measurement on a run or sequence chart. No deviation from the prescribed method is allowed.

In method 2, you may use the same, or a different, group of 20 or more people and the same or a different entrance door. This time, the group will use the tape measure in any way the group members desire. Again, each person silently reports the measurement of the entrance door to you or a designated data collector, and you will tabulate and plot each data point. You will then create a PowerPoint presentation that includes each of the following items: Compare the accuracy and precision of the two methods using graphical and analytical methods. Which method was more accurate?

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. This can also be done in the flow chart. 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.

Which method of measurement would you recommend? Why? Should different methods be used under different circumstances? Consider the role of different customer segments. Discuss the feelings the group(s) had when using the two methods.

What were the differences between the two sets of feelings? Are these differences important? Use research.strayer.edu to identify at least two (2) quality references to support your discussion. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: A PPT presentation with at least 8 slides that include the responses to numbers 1 through 3 above. A references slide which follows APA format.

Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Formatting of the slides should be consistent and easy to read. Cover slide containing the title of the assignment, the student's name, the professor's name, the course title, and the date. Note: The cover and the reference slides are not included in the required assignment slides length.

Paper For Above instruction

The assessment of measurement methods is fundamental to ensuring accuracy and precision in various industries, especially in contexts requiring height measurement. The experiment described provides an opportunity to compare two methods—using a yardstick or meter stick versus a tape measure—to evaluate their performance based on accuracy, precision, and user perception. This paper discusses the experiment's design, analysis, and implications, providing insights into process improvement and decision-making tailored to customer needs.

Experiment Design and Data Collection

The experiment involves two measurement methods applied to the same fixed object—the entrance door of a building, at least 6 feet tall. For the first method, 20 or more participants measure the height of the door using a yardstick or meter stick. Strict adherence to procedure—silently reporting measurements—ensures data consistency and minimizes bias. This procedure is repeated with either the same or different participants using the tape measure, allowing for comparative analysis of both methods' measurement variation. The collected data is then plotted on run charts to visualize consistency and identify outliers or variation trends.

Analysis of Measurement Accuracy and Precision

Accuracy reflects how close measurements are to the true height of the door, while precision indicates the consistency among measurements. Graphical methods like control charts or run charts provide visual assessments of variation, while statistical analyses (e.g., calculating standard deviation, coefficient of variation) quantify precision. The method with measurements consistently closer to the actual height and exhibiting less variation is more accurate and precise, respectively. Typically, tape measures, designed for flexible and fast use, offer differing results based on user technique compared to rigid yardsticks, which may produce more consistent readings.

Flowchart and SIPOC Analysis

Developing flowcharts for each method helps visualize the measurement process and identify potential problems. For example, issues in the yardstick method may include misreading increments or misalignment, while tape measure issues could involve slack or misreading due to tape curvature. The SIPOC model—Suppliers (askers of measurements), Inputs (yardstick, tape), Process steps (measure and record), Outputs (measurement data), Customers (business or clients)—aids in analyzing process efficiency and quality. It highlights areas for improvement, such as standardizing measurement procedures or training users to reduce variability caused by human error.

Categorization of Variability and Opportunities for Improvement

Analyzing the sources of variability reveals whether it stems from common causes (inherent process variation) or special causes (occasion-specific errors). For instance, inconsistencies from different users suggest common causes, such as technique differences, while outliers might indicate special causes, like malfunctioning equipment. Addressing these can involve standard procedures, calibration, or staff training, aiming to reduce variability and improve measurement reliability.

Recommendation and Contextual Use of Methods

Based on the analysis, the more accurate and precise method—likely the yardstick in controlled conditions—would be recommended for critical measurements requiring high accuracy. However, tape measures may be more convenient and versatile in field situations, especially when speed or flexibility is essential. Different customer segments may prioritize different attributes: health clinics may require high precision, while construction sites may value speed and ease of use. The perception of ease or frustration among users influences satisfaction and trust, which are crucial for customer retention and reputation.

User Experience and Emotional Response

Participants may feel more confident using the yardstick if measurements are consistent, whereas tape users might feel more frustrated if slack or curvature affects readings. Understanding these feelings helps tailor measurement protocols according to user comfort, thereby improving overall service quality. Such insights are supported by research emphasizing the importance of user-centered process design in measurement reliability (Chong et al., 2020; Lee & Kim, 2019).

Conclusion

The comparison highlights that while the yardstick method may offer higher accuracy and consistency in controlled settings, flexible tape measures are advantageous in dynamic environments. Improvement opportunities include standardization, training, and calibration to minimize variation. Decision-makers should consider the context, customer needs, and user experience when selecting measurement methods, ensuring reliability and customer satisfaction. The integration of flowcharts and SIPOC models facilitates ongoing process improvement, contributing to robust measurement systems and enhanced service quality.

References

• Chong, S., Lee, H., & Kim, J. (2020). User-centered process improvements in measurement systems. Journal of Quality Management, 34(2), 150-165.
• Lee, Y., & Kim, S. (2019). Human factors in measurement accuracy: A review of ergonomic considerations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 70, 102-112.
• Montgomery, D. C. (2019). Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran's Quality Handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
• Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. (2014). Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Rahman, S., & Tannock, J. (2018). Measurement systems analysis: Techniques and applications. Measurement, 124, 166-176.
• Harrington, H. J. (2012). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart. McGraw-Hill.
• Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014). The Six Sigma Handbook, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Ramlall, S., & Sharma, D. (2021). Process flowcharts and SIPOC models for quality improvement initiatives. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(7), 1512-1525.