Manistique Inc.

Manistique Inc. devised a gumshoe compliance program within the judicature whose aim is to train and monitor employees inducing low injury pass judgment and higher guard duty compliance standards. Manistique offers rewards to employees with refuse injury rate. The program was implemented on a large-scale throughout the organization amongst 83 plants. Without both statistical analysis it would be impossible to reach a closing as to whether the program has improvised the injury rates or not however, individuals remark that there has been a slide in the injury rates depicting a favorable work of the training program.The objective at Manistique is to standardize the program across the board so that there is fat saving on administrative costs incurred due to workplace injuries. before this can be done so, the terms of the program charter to be decided which will come in handy in win over the management of the worthiness of this program. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to a nalyze the kindred amidst the terms of the sentry go program and the most two important measures of prophylactic rates1. Safety attitudes 2. Time lost due to injuries. Making usage of historical information as well as data acquirable from the last quarter, this paper will use statistical techniques to reach a remnant as to whether the safety program has been successful in labored injury rates. Analysis The report is attached with the original dataset provided for the analysis of this report. We shall fetch by analyzing the correlation coefficient coefficients between the different variables in the dataset to ascertain a cobblers last as to whether the program has really improved safety attitudes and improved the beat lost in injuries or whether the change is statistically in fundamental correlational statistics between safe training attitude (safetrain) & i) tot outlet of injuries (tinjuries) victimisation the CORREL office staff in Excel, the look upon for the correl ation co-efficient was The low positive shelter of the correlation co-efficient suggests that there is no significant affinity between the safety attitude and the actual identification itemize of workplace injuries i. e. the attitude has not helped the possible level of injuries incurred at Manistique. For a significant cause-and-effect family relationship the cling to of the correlation coefficient should have been positively larger. i) Total number of deaths (tfatalities) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the prize for the correlation co-efficient was The correlation co-efficient is opposely charged (as should not have been the case). The value is not significantly high (very close to 0), which suggests that safety standards have simply some(prenominal) capture in lowering the number of deaths at Manistique. On the other hand it has slightly increased the number of injuries (correlation co-efficient is slightly positive). Thus, safety attitudes have not at all been effective in diminution the number of injuries. iii) Disability long time (disab days)Using 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 disability days (the lower the attitude, the lower the disability days). However, the value of the correlation co-efficient is very small which negates any strong relationship between the two variables. Correlation between safety support from co-workers (safesupport) & i) Total number of injuries (tinjuries) Using the CORREL function in Excel, the value for the correlation co-efficient wasThe correlation coefficient is positive. This suggests that the increased safety support from co-workers actually has a positivee limit as it results in a drop in number of injuries at Manistique. However the low value 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).This negates all possibilities of a favorable model of the coworker safety in cut down the number of deaths at Manistique in fact, the relationship is quite 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 closure that there exists a negative relationship but the degree of influence is very meek. This brings about the conclusion that there is no significant influence of the co-worker support attitude on the number of disability days it is quite the opposite.Correlation between safety support 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).Increasing confidence held by a worker that he/she is safe does not decrease the number of injuries at Manistique rather it increases it weakly. This is ample evidence for a lack of good 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 inf luence of the belief of safety held by a worker on the number of disability days.Conclusion Based on the calculations made in the higher up section, the conclusion that can be formed here is quite open-and-shut and brief the new safety compliance program at Manistique has no significant influence upon improving 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 bounteous to reduce the number of worker injuries, deaths and the number of disability days at Manistique.Moving barely above the 0. 1 correlation level, there is no need for statistical hypothesis testing methods to be employed in reaching the conclusion. At any confidence level, these values are sufficiently weak enough to conclude that the safety compliance program is of significant importance in saving administrative costs for Manistique by cut down the number of injuries, deaths or disability days at Manistique.