Problem description: You oversee a manufacturing facility that produces an automotive part (steel shaft for the gearbox). The acceptable dimension of the shaft is 2.5±0.05 inches in diameter with the most desirable product being exactly 2.5 inches. Two vendors are trying to sell their equipment for the shaft-machining task to your company, Automotive Parts Corporation. You have been asked to assess the equipment from each vendor, and to make a recommendation on which one to make the purchase from, supported by a justification for your decision.
You asked both vendors to supply data on the machining accuracy of their equipment for the given task. Both vendors machined 100 shafts, collected data, plotted histograms, fitted the histograms with normal distributions and supplied you with their findings
Let X= diameter in inches of the gearbox shaft
Ace Machines: X has a normal distribution with mean 2.48 and variance 0.001
Best Machinery: X has a normal distribution with mean 2.51 and variance 0.002
When you are completing your memorandum be sure to address the following:
Recommend a vendor using the given information, develop and discuss your approach (give all details including quantitative justification). Your response to this question must be directed to the audience described below.
Examine the scenario as described and discuss what additional information would be helpful to make this recommendation a stronger selection, and why that information would be useful. Be careful not to negate your recommendation as you explain this.
Include your calculations as a titled addendum on its own page at the end of your document.
Audience: You are creating this document for the company’s Chief Operating Officer, Lin Gerard, and copying the Chief Financial Officer, Aileen Kitts. Documents involved in major financial decisions like this may also be distributed by the addressees to other executives and the corporate board members.
household to a middle class home. Mr Kops does not describe his hosts, or the other evacuees he was billeted with; his recollections are solely on the material benefits of his new environment (such as hot tap water and an indoor loo!). While Mr Kops’ autobiography is not based on notes he made during the war, his account reads as though the unadulterated joy of discovering this new lifestyle is still very much fresh in his mind. Further, his transition from a working class to a middle class home appears to have been as wondrous as Mrs Preedy’s transition from a middle class to working class environment was traumatic. Experience of the host families Having seen two very different reactions from evacuees to their experiences, we shall now turn our attention to the experiences of the host families who, as with the evacuees, could be expected to find the haphazard allocations system to have been traumatic. For many, there was a feeling of horror about the condition and behaviour of the children who had been placed with them. One extract from a contemporaneous report published in 1940 (source 14), describes in detail the concerns about the children’s lack of hygiene, poor health, poor clothing, and also describes both mothers and children being in the habit of soiling their beds. While this extract undoubtedly describes the views of some, it has been taken from a wider report and it is unclear if the rest of the report is in the same light. Some of the comments made appear almost hysterical, such as the assertion that “one child was suffering from scabies and the majority had it in their hair” [this could have simply been itchiness due to nits] and that the “school had to be fumigated after the reception”. While the veracity of some of the comments may be disputed, the excerpt is useful as social commentary as it gives a good insight into the reactions and possibly prejudices of people towards the influx of children and some of their mothers from the inner cities. For one boy (source 16), having two evacuee children sharing his home didn’t appear to be such a traumatic experience. In an interview in September 1939, the boy describes being disappointed that the evacuees were girls, as he’d expected boys, but sounds relaxed and cheerful about “showing them around”. The billeting of girls rather than boys to this home may have been a mismatch in the allocation or the child (and his family) may simply have assumed that other boys would be placed in the household. The interview with the boy was made by the BBC in the first month of Operation Pied Piper and was presumably intended to reassure the families of the evacuated, the prospective evacuees, as well as possibly encouraging further host families to come forward. The radio interview is also accompanied by a photograph of the boy, leading a small child on a donkey; as it is unlikely that all radio interviewees were routinely photographed, we might infer that the there was a propaganda aspect to this interview and that the photograph was reproduced to promote both the interview and the evacuation programme. In considering the impact of evacuees on host families, some hist>