Econ1203 Report
Executive Summary
This report aims to provide statistical analysis on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of AllRepair’s staff.
Using sample data from 293 jobs completed in the last year, we were able to make accurate inferences concerning AllRepair’s business and have formed the following conclusions;
Efficiency
Our analysis of efficiency was primarily concerned with finding any marked differences between staff undertaking the same tasks.
We found that; * For jobs assigned a low-level or mid-level difficulty there was negligible difference in mean time between Mechanics. * For Higher-level difficulty jobs, there were more noticeable differences between each Mechanic. However, this is most likely due to errors relating to the system used in assigning difficulties. * There was no obvious relationship between a Mechanic’s experience and their efficiency.
Effectiveness
Our analysis of effectiveness used customer survey responses to determine the level of satisfaction with AllRepairs as a whole and, more specifically, in each of AllRepair’s service branches. For the purpose of this report, service branches were categorised according to the difficulty variable.
Each area examined was compared with the previously established target stating that 80% of customers should be satisfied with AllRepair’s services.
Given the data supplied, there was no substantial evidence to suggest that AllRepairs was not achieving a satisfaction level in-line with the 80% target in any of its service branches.
1. Efficiency
Distribution of Jobs according to Mechanic
The above graph illustrates the total number of jobs undertaken by each mechanic, and the composition of difficulties assigned to each mechanic.
Table 1: Mean, Range and Variance according to difficulty assigned Table 1 | Sample Mean (x) | Minimum | Maximum | Range | Sample Variance (s2) | Difficulty 1 | 21.1 | 11 | 32 | 21 | 25.9 | Difficulty 2 | 33.9 | 6 | 62 | 56 | 84.5 | Difficulty 3 |
This report aims to provide statistical analysis on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of AllRepair’s staff.
Using sample data from 293 jobs completed in the last year, we were able to make accurate inferences concerning AllRepair’s business and have formed the following conclusions;
Efficiency
Our analysis of efficiency was primarily concerned with finding any marked differences between staff undertaking the same tasks.
We found that; * For jobs assigned a low-level or mid-level difficulty there was negligible difference in mean time between Mechanics. * For Higher-level difficulty jobs, there were more noticeable differences between each Mechanic. However, this is most likely due to errors relating to the system used in assigning difficulties. * There was no obvious relationship between a Mechanic’s experience and their efficiency.
Effectiveness
Our analysis of effectiveness used customer survey responses to determine the level of satisfaction with AllRepairs as a whole and, more specifically, in each of AllRepair’s service branches. For the purpose of this report, service branches were categorised according to the difficulty variable.
Each area examined was compared with the previously established target stating that 80% of customers should be satisfied with AllRepair’s services.
Given the data supplied, there was no substantial evidence to suggest that AllRepairs was not achieving a satisfaction level in-line with the 80% target in any of its service branches.
1. Efficiency
Distribution of Jobs according to Mechanic
The above graph illustrates the total number of jobs undertaken by each mechanic, and the composition of difficulties assigned to each mechanic.
Table 1: Mean, Range and Variance according to difficulty assigned Table 1 | Sample Mean (x) | Minimum | Maximum | Range | Sample Variance (s2) | Difficulty 1 | 21.1 | 11 | 32 | 21 | 25.9 | Difficulty 2 | 33.9 | 6 | 62 | 56 | 84.5 | Difficulty 3 |