Case Study: Type of Industry
RBUS2900 Case Study Part 1
Question 1:
Provide an interpretation of the output to describe the following variables: Satisfaction Level (X7), Safety Level (X8), Safety Rating (X9), and Type of Industry (X10)
Answer 1:
Satisfaction Level (X7)
The average satisfaction rating by the 160 customers who have had past purchases from ManuFactu-R-US was 5. There was small standard deviation of only 1, with the majority of customer ratings ranging between 4 and 6. The maximum rating given was 7 and the minimum was 1.
Safety Level (X8)
The customers gave ManuFactu-R-US an average of 2.4 for ManuFactu-R-US’ on-site safety levels. There was a significant amount of standard deviation, with many customers giving safety level ratings between 1 and 4. The maximum safety level rating recorded was 10 and the minimum rating was 1.
Safety Rating (X9)
Out of the 160 customers who were surveyed about the safety levels of ManuFactu-R-US’ recognized by their industry regulator, half of the customers said Manu-Factu-R-US has high safety levels whereas the other half said that they have low safety levels.
Type of Industry (X10)
78 firms regarded themselves as part of the construction industry whereas the other 82 firms regard themselves as part of the mining industry.
Question 2:
Provide an interpretation of the analysis output for Safety Rating (X9) and
Type of Industry (X10).
Answer 2:
The phi value was 2.25 (greater than one) which indicating a positive relationship between safety rating and the type of industry. The p-value is 0.011 which is less than the level of significance of 5%. The test statistic (Chi-square= 6.04) is higher than the critical value. The results are unlikely to be due to chance alone and also a systematic association between the variables appears to exist.
Question 3:
Provide an interpretation of the analysis output for Safety Rating (X9) and
Australian State (X11).
Answer 3:
The phi value was calculated to be 0.08 which is smaller than one, indicating
Question 1:
Provide an interpretation of the output to describe the following variables: Satisfaction Level (X7), Safety Level (X8), Safety Rating (X9), and Type of Industry (X10)
Answer 1:
Satisfaction Level (X7)
The average satisfaction rating by the 160 customers who have had past purchases from ManuFactu-R-US was 5. There was small standard deviation of only 1, with the majority of customer ratings ranging between 4 and 6. The maximum rating given was 7 and the minimum was 1.
Safety Level (X8)
The customers gave ManuFactu-R-US an average of 2.4 for ManuFactu-R-US’ on-site safety levels. There was a significant amount of standard deviation, with many customers giving safety level ratings between 1 and 4. The maximum safety level rating recorded was 10 and the minimum rating was 1.
Safety Rating (X9)
Out of the 160 customers who were surveyed about the safety levels of ManuFactu-R-US’ recognized by their industry regulator, half of the customers said Manu-Factu-R-US has high safety levels whereas the other half said that they have low safety levels.
Type of Industry (X10)
78 firms regarded themselves as part of the construction industry whereas the other 82 firms regard themselves as part of the mining industry.
Question 2:
Provide an interpretation of the analysis output for Safety Rating (X9) and
Type of Industry (X10).
Answer 2:
The phi value was 2.25 (greater than one) which indicating a positive relationship between safety rating and the type of industry. The p-value is 0.011 which is less than the level of significance of 5%. The test statistic (Chi-square= 6.04) is higher than the critical value. The results are unlikely to be due to chance alone and also a systematic association between the variables appears to exist.
Question 3:
Provide an interpretation of the analysis output for Safety Rating (X9) and
Australian State (X11).
Answer 3:
The phi value was calculated to be 0.08 which is smaller than one, indicating