Memorandum Peer Review Hello, I have a peer review assignment. Everything you need to know of how much feedback I need and what kind of feedback is under t

Memorandum Peer Review Hello, I have a peer review assignment. Everything you need to know of how much feedback I need and what kind of feedback is under the file (Peer reviews). I need feedback for 4 memos that are all uploaded here as PDF.If you have any questions, let me know please. Thank you. Memorandum
To:
Lin Gerard, Chief Operating Officer, Automotive Parts Corporation
CC:
Aileen Kitts, Chief Financial Officer, Automotive Parts Corporation
From: Summer Potter, Management, Automotive Parts Corporation
Date: February 23, 2019
Subject: Recommendation for Shaft-Machining Equipment
Summary
Automotive Parts Corporation is searching for equipment for the shaft-machining task.
Two companies, Ace Machines and Best Machining would like to sell their equipment to
our company, Automotive Parts Corporation. The acceptable dimension of the shaft that
we produce 2.5±0.05 inches, with exactly 2.5 inches being the most desirable product. In
the process of my analysis, with the mean and variance values that both companies have
provided, I have compared the probability of both machines producing a shaft between
2.45-2.55 inches in diameter. I have also compared the probability of both machines
producing a shaft of exactly 2.5 inches in diameter. From my calculations, the
recommendation I am making is to buy the equipment from Ace Machines.
Analysis
I have been asked to address which companies’ shaft-machining equipment would be
beneficial to purchase. Both Ace Machines and Best Machining machined 100 shafts and
provided their findings. Ace machines produced shafts with a mean of 2.48 and a
variance of 0.001. Best Machining produced shafts with a mean of 2.51 and a variance of
0.002. With this information, I compared the probabilities of both machines producing a
shaft between 2.45 and 2.55 inches in diameter. I have also compared the probabilities of
both machines producing a shaft of exactly 2.5 inches in diameter. In order to compare
the probabilities, I created a normal distribution curve graph for both companies. Figure 1
is the graph for Ace Machines, and Figure 2 is the graph for Best Machining. With the
variance, I was able to find the standard deviation by taking the square root for each
variance. Once completed, I found Z values for both companies and compared their
values on the standard normal curve areas table. With this information, I was able to
compute the probabilities for each. Ace Machines had a 0.8153 probability of producing
a shaft between 2.45 and 2.55 inches in diameter, whereas Best Machining had a 0.7232
probability of producing the same. For producing a shaft of exactly 2.5 inches in
diameter, Ace Machines had a 0.7357 probability, versus Best Machining, which only
had a 0.4129 probability. With this information, I recommend purchasing Ace Machines
shaft-machining equipment. Ace Machines had a higher probability of acceptable shaft
dimensions in both categories.
Normal distribution curve of the shaft diameters from Ace Machines equipment
Normal distribution curve of the shaft diameters from Best Machining equipment
Additional Considerations
Additional information that would possibly be helpful in making this recommendation
stronger would be the working life of the equipment. If the machine were known to be
useful for a long period of time, it would make a stronger case for choosing it. Also, if the
prices of the machines were provided and the two machines could be compared, that
would be helpful as well. If both machines cost about the same, it would further my
recommendation since there would be no financial difference.
Conclusion
I was tasked to recommend a shaft machine company that would benefit Automotive
Parts Corporation. Our company needs a machine that produces a shaft with a diameter
between 2.45 and 2.55 inches, with the most desirable shaft being exactly 2.5 inches in
diameter. Ace Machines and Best Machining provided findings on their companies’
equipment, with which I have used to construct an analysis. With my calculations, Ace
Machines has a higher probability of producing the shafts that Automotive Parts
Corporation desires; therefore, I recommend purchasing Ace Machines equipment.
Addendum 1: Statistical Calculations
Desired Product
2.5 inch diameter (preferred)
2.45-2.55 inch diameter (accepted)
Ace Machines
Mean: 2.48 inch diameter
Variance: 0.001
Standard deviation: 0.031623
Best Machining
Mean: 2.51 inch diameter
Variance: 0.002
Standard deviation: 0.044721
Z=[(desired product diameter-machine produced diameter)/(standard deviation)]
For 2.5 inch diameter
Ace Machines:
Z=[(2.5-2.48)/(0.031623)]=0.63
Probability(2.5)=Probability(Z=0.63)=0.7357
Best Machining:
Z=[(2.5-2.51)/(0.044721)]=0.22
Probability (2.5) = Probability (Z=-0.22)=0.4129
For 2.45 to 2.55 inch diameter
Probability (2.45≤x≤2.55) = Probability (2.55)- Probability (2.45)
Ace Machines:
Z1=[(2.45-2.48)/(0.031623)]=-0.95
Z2=[(2.55-2.48)/(0.031623)]=2.21
Probability (2.45≤x≤2.55)= Probability (Z≤2.21)- Probability (Z≤-0.95)=0.8153
Best Machining:
Z1=[(2.45-2.51)/(0.044721)]=-1.34
Z2=[(2.55-2.51)/(0.044721)]=0.89
Probability (2.45≤x≤2.55)= Probability (Z≤0.89)- Probability (Z≤-1.34)=0.7232
Memorandum
To: Lin Gerard, COO, Automotive Parts Corporation
CC: Aileen Kitts, CFO, Automotive Parts Corporation
From: Jason Manalo, Industrial Engineer, Automotive Parts Corporation
Date: March 18th, 2019
Subject: Steel Shaft Component Recommendation
Executive Summary:
In order to have an acceptable shaft part, its diameter must fall between 2.45 inches and
2.55 inches. However, a component that is larger than the standard will not fit and
immediately have no odds of working. Therefore if a part were to be unacceptable, I
would rather it be smaller than larger. Ace Machines has a higher probability to produce
working parts than Best Machines and its unacceptable parts have a tendency to be lower
than 2.45 inches. The company’s part also have a significantly smaller variance than Best
Machinery which means that each of Ace Machines’ parts are closer to the arithmetic
mean diameter of 2.48. Ace Machines should be chosen to provide our company’s steel
shaft components.
Analysis:
For simplicity, Ace Machines will be called “A” and Best Machinery will be called “B”.
As shown in A’s histogram, its unacceptable parts have a tendency to be smaller. B’s
variance is two times larger than A’s variance which means that each of B’s parts are two
times farther away from their respective mean than A. The probability of acceptable parts
was calculated by analyzing the cumulative distribution function. The probabilities
shown in the histograms as shaded regions. Company A’s probability is 9% larger than B.
Both company’s parts were analyzed in a sample of 100 parts.
Conclusion:
Ace machines should be chosen for its more consistent production of working parts. The
sample of 100 parts shows that Best Machinery produces reliable 72.5% of the time,
which is 9% lower than Ace. This selection should be finalized after considering both
Ace Machines and Best Machinery’s machine cost, output/unit time, and maintenance
cost.
Visual Support:
WE
X
diameter
–
of
tolerance
A
B
X
:
X
:
A
(
N
–
2.48
(
N
–
2.5+1
=
2.51
O
,
O
–
O
,
gearbox
a
.
2.45
2.55
,
]
)
001
.
[
=
inch
,
)
002
😛
2.557=10/2
.jo?o-o2j4s)-P(2j4o5.o-o2j4s
2.45
C
exe
=
C
B
05
.
shaft
2.45
E
32,3
=L
O
.
)
815
)
:p j5)
Pf
2.557=10%5076%51
X
e
–
–
Note
:
32
.
=
O
.
725
,
–
:÷÷÷⇒i:÷
^
capacity
C
production
–
quality
–
of
Life
useful
–
output
costs
cost
–
–
r
–
of
Inuit
time
(
,
cost
maintenance
–
:
setup
finished
product
( depreciation
)
reliability
–
x
cost
machine
–
–
factors
relevant
Other
f
wasted
raw
)
Labor
C
materials
e.g.
,
,
etc
.
)
surface
roughness)
Memorandum
TO: Lin Gerard, Chief Operating Officer, Automotive Parts Corporation
CC: Aileen Kitts , Chief Financial Officer, Automotive Parts Corporation
From: Dante Andrews, Automotive Parts Corporation
Date: March 26, 2019
Subject: Statistical Analysis
Summary
The question asked was which vendor should the facility choose from to supply the
manufacturing facility with machines that would produce shafts at ideally 2.5 inches.
Creating a normal distribution chart I found that Best Machinery would produce the specs
closest to our ideal and so Best Machinery should be chosen.
Analysis
I was given the task of finding which vendor would supply us with shafts that would
closely match our ideal of 2.5 inches. Given that Ace Machinery produces shafts with a
mean 2.48 and variance 0.001, and Best Machinery produces shafts with a mean 2.51 and
variance 0.002, I set up both in a normal distribution chart and compared them to each
other. We know that Best Machinery deviates less from the ideal of 2.5 inches less than
compared to Ace Machinery. My recommendation is to choose Best Machinery.
Visual Support
Conclusion
Given the task of choosing a vendor, it is my personal recommendation that we go with
Best Machinery.
Addendum 1: Statistical Calculations
Given that Ace Machinery produces shafts with a mean 2.48 and variance 0.001 the
standard deviation is .815.
Best Machinery produces shafts with a mean 2.51 and variance 0.002 and the standard
deviation is .725
Memorandum
To: ​Lin Gerard, COO, Automotive Parts Corporation
CC: ​Aileen Kitts, CFO, Automotive Parts Corporation
From: ​Chase Rogalski, Head Product Analyst, Automotive Parts Corporation
Date: ​March 25, 2019
Subject: ​Automotive Parts Corporation Steel Shaft Recommendation
Summary
After our previous meeting about the steel shaft, we have decided to outsource
the manufacturing of the shaft to a third party. The acceptable dimensions that we have
agreed on are 2.5 ± 0.05 inches for the diameter. After analyzing both vendors, Ace
Machines and Best Machinery, our recommendation would be to go with Ace Machines.
Analysis
To calculate the reliability and accuracy of their equipment, each vendor
machined 100 shafts, collected their data, and reported their findings below.
Ace Machines:
A normal distribution with a mean of 2.48 inches and a variance of 0.001
Best Machinery:
A normal distribution with a mean of 2.51 inches and a variance of 0.002
The term normal distribution is how the data is represented on a line graph. Specifically,
a normal distribution would make the shape of a bell. When receiving data, the bell
curve or normal distribution is the ideal model when presenting data.
The term mean is the average result of each of the shafts diameter. Please reference
the Addendum for how the mean can be calculated.
The term variance is a numerical representation of randomness when manufacturing.
The smaller the variance, the more accurate and stable the making of the auto part.
Steel Shaft Recommendation
0
Automotive Parts Corporation’s main goal is to have the vendor provide a reliable
product. Even though Ace Machines average diameter does not meet our standards,
the variance, or how reliable it is, can provide a better product in the long run.
Visual Support
Normal Distribution Graph Example
Skewed Distribution Graph Example
Additional Considerations
Other factors that could bias the decision include production rate. If one of the
vendors produces the shafts at a much slower rate, but more accurate, that could cost
more revenue with lack of inventory. Another point would be the quality of the shaft
Steel Shaft Recommendation
1
itself. If one of the vendors produces a stronger and longer lasting shaft, the benefits are
less repairs for our customers and better brand recognition.
Conclusion
At first glance, the results might show that the better decision would be to go with
Best Machinery, but after a more in-depth review the results show that Ace Machinery
creates a more accurate part, and it can be replicated with less errors. Even though the
average diameter is 2.48 unlike the target 2.5 inches, we will be able to either negotiate
the manufacturing techniques or manipulate our design to fit the 2.48 shaft.
Steel Shaft Recommendation
2
Addendum
Mean Calculation
X = the shaft diameter per result
N = number of shafts made
∑ X i / N = M ean (Average)
Steel Shaft Recommendation
3
Part 2.4: Peer reviews
To complete reviews, reply to the posted work of each of your group
members. Feedback MUST be actionable, that is something specific that they can
continue to do, do more of, change or add to their work. For example “your analysis was
good” or “your analysis was weak” does not provide feedback they can work with; Use
“How to write a business memorandum” as a resource to determine specifically what
makes the document strong, what may be missing that needs to be added or when a part
of the document is not formatted correctly or achieving what it should. Specific feedback
may look like:
•
•
•
Including the provided data in text form is long and difficult to read, consider using a
table instead.
The second sentence of your analysis does not read clearly to me, consider rewording
it.
You omitted the recommendation in the summary; it should be included there.
Writing Assignment 2.4: Peer Reviews
In the week following the first part of the assignment complete the following peer
review (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site of the other members of your
assigned Canvas group. You must include feedback in the reviews that will enable the
writers to improve their final submittal. As a minimum, address the following after
considering the approach and justification of your peers’ work:
•
•
•
•
•
Did your classmate use the appropriate header for their memorandum? Is the
information in it correct? If not, specify what is incorrect. Is the subject line clear
and concise? If not, offer an idea of what needs to be stated differently.
Are there parts of their approaches and justifications that are unclear to you?
Specify what part(s) of their memorandum, and why it is unclear. What changes
would help to make it clearer?
What aspects of their responses were particularly helpful in making their
memorandum clear?
Did your peers utilize a professional writing style as outlined in the assignment?
Provide examples of how they did or did not meet this requirement.
Did their use of visuals in their document help make their ideas more clear?
At the end of your review, offer an honest assessment of how your peers completed their
assignments. Utilizing the exact language below, indicate whether they:
•
•
•
Met minimum writing requirements.
Exceeded minimum writing requirements.
Did not meet minimum writing requirements.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment