'Manistique Inc.\r'

'Manistique Inc. devised a gum elastic compliance plan within the organization whose aim is to train and varan employees inducing low injury judge and high synthetic rubber compliance standards. Manistique offers rewards to employees with lower injury rates. The plan was implemented on a large-scale passim the organization amongst 83 plants. Without all statistical analytic thinking it would be impossible to reach a endpoint as to whether the broadcast has improvised the injury rates or not; however, individuals remark that there has been a slide in the injury rates portraying a favorable govern of the training political program.\r\nThe fair game at Manistique is to standardize the program across the advance so that there is adenylic acidle saving on administrative be incurred due to oeuvre injuries. to begin with this stub be done so, the terms of the program grow to be decided which allow for scram in spendy in convincing the vigilance of the worthiness of this program. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the human relationship amongst the terms of the refuge program and the nearly two important measures of natural rubber rates:\r\n1. synthetic rubber berths 2. Time lost due to injuries. Making pulmonary tuberculosis of historical information as well as data available from the last quarter, this paper will use statistical techniques to reach a decision as to whether the prophylacticty program has been successful in toilsome injury rates. Analysis The report is abandoned with the original dataset provided for the analysis of this report. We shall begin by analyzing the coefficient of correlativityal statisticss in the midst of the different variables in the dataset to ascertain a shutdown as to whether the program has really improved galosh situations and improved the time lost in injuries or whether the change is statistically in remarkable\r\n coefficient of correlation coefficiental statistics amo ng safe training attitude (safetrain) & i) score number of injuries (tinjuries) utilise the CORREL habit in Excel, the care for for the correlation co-efficient was: The low positive order of the correlation co-efficient suggests that there is no real relationship between the safety attitude and the actual number of workplace injuries i. e. the attitude has not helped the practical level of injuries incurred at Manistique. For a significant cause-and-effect relationship the shelter of the correlation coefficient should drop been positively larger. i) congeries number of deaths (tfatalities) use the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The correlation co-efficient is nix (as should not defy been the case). The value is not significantly high ( truly close to 0), which suggests that safety standards have hardly any influence in lowering the number of deaths at Manistique. On the other hand it has slightly increased the number of inj uries (correlation co-efficient is slightly positive). Thus, safety attitudes have not at all been efficacious in reducing the number of injuries. iii) Disability eld (disabold age)\r\nUsing the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: Again the negative value suggests that there is a negative relationship between safety attitude and balk days (the lower the attitude, the lower the hinderance days). However, the value of the correlation co-efficient is very small which negates any pissed relationship between the two variables. Correlation between safety keep from co-workers (safesupport) & i) constitutional number of injuries (tinjuries) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was:\r\nThe correlation coefficient is positive. This suggests that the increased safety support from co-workers actually has a positivee influence as it results in a drop in number of injuries at Manistique. However the low va lue of the coefficient suggests no strong cause-and-effect relationship for the program implemented at Manistique. ii) Total number of deaths (tfatalities) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The correlation co-efficient is negative (as should not have been the case).\r\nThis negates all possibilities of a favorable influence of the coworker safety in reducing the number of deaths at Manistique; in fact, the relationship is sort of the opposite with a very small magnitude. iii) Disability days (disabdays) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The low negative value again brings the shoemakers last that there exists a negative relationship nevertheless the degree of influence is very meek. This brings about the induction that there is no significant influence of the co-worker support attitude on the number of disability days; it is quite the opposite.\r\nCorrelation between safety suppor t from co-workers (feelsafe) & i) Total number of injuries (tinjuries) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The correlation co-efficient is negative (as should have been the case). However, the highly negligible value of the co-efficient suggests no significant relationship between a feeling of safety amongst the workers and the actual injuries at Manistique. ii) Total number of deaths (tfatalities) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The correlation coefficient is positive (as should not have been the case).\r\nIncreasing self-assurance held by a worker that he/she is safe does not decrease the number of injuries at Manistique; sooner it increases it weakly. This is ample evidence for a lack of adept relationship between the two variables. iii) Disability days (disabdays) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient was: The low negative value again brings the conclusion that there exists a positive relationship but the degree of influence is very meek. This brings about the conclusion that there is no significant influence of the feeling of safety held by a worker on the number of disability days.\r\nConclusion Based on the calculations made in the higher up section, the conclusion that can be formed here is quite demonstrable and brief: the new safety compliance program at Manistique has no significant influence upon astir(p) the number of injuries, fatalities or disability days at Manistique. The training program, co-worker support regarding the safety program or even the belief held by the workers that their safety has increased as a result of the program have no cause-and-effect relationship good abounding to reduce the number of worker injuries, deaths and the number of disability days at Manistique.\r\nMoving barely above the 0. 1 correlation level, there is no destiny for statistical hypothesis testing methods to be assiduous in reaching the conclusion. At any pledge level, these values are sufficiently weak rich to conclude that the safety compliance program is of significant importance in saving administrative costs for Manistique by reducing the number of injuries, deaths or disability days at Manistique.\r\n'