Table 1

Factors Frequency
Misinformed about the contract 165
Wrong products shipped 37
Took too long to receive 30
Defective product 26
Changed my mind 13
Never received the phone 12
Total 283

Frequency
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Misinformed Wrong products Took too long to Defective product Changed my mind Never receiv
about the contract shipped receive the phone
 0
Misinformed Wrong products Took too long to Defective product Changed my mind Never receiv
about the contract shipped receive the phone

Factors Frequency
Misinformed about the contract 165
Wrong products shipped 37
Took too long to receive 30
Defective product 26
Changed my mind 13
Never received the phone 12
Total 283

Version 2

Factor s contr ibuted the mos t to caus

180
165
160

140

82%
120

71%
100

58%
80

60

40 37
30

20

58% 13% 11%

0
Misinformed about the con- Wrong products shipped Took too long to receive
 60

40 37
30

20

58% 13% 11%

0
Misinformed about the con- Wrong products shipped Took too long to receive
tract

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPNo4yPX3s Frequency Relative Frequency

Histogram

Histogram Frekuensi Penyebab Keluhan Pelan

180
165
160

140

120

100

80

60

40 37
30 26
20

0
Misinformed about the Wrong products shipped Took too long to receive Defective product Cha
contract

Line Diagram

Line Diagram Frekuensi Penyebab Keluhan Pelangga

180
165
160

140

120
 Line Diagram Frekuensi Penyebab Keluhan Pelangga
180
165
160

140

120

100
Frekuensi

80

60

37
40
30
26

20

0
Misinformed about the Wrong products shipped Took too long to receive Defective product
contract

Faktor Penyebab Keluhan

Factors Frequency
Misinformed about the contract 165
Wrong products shipped 37
Took too long to receive 30
Defective product 26
Changed my mind 13
Never received the phone 12
Total 283

250

200

150

100

50
 150

100

50

0
Misinformed about the contract Wrong products

-50

-100

Control Chart
-150
 A cellular phone service provider was facing a high volume of
returned phones from its customers. The quality control manager
decided to conduct a Pareto analysis to determine what factors
contributed the most to causing customer dissatisfaction. The data in
Table 1 were gathered from Customer Services during a period of 1
month to analyze the reasons behind the high volume of customers’
return of cellular phones ordered online. The table is used to construct
a Pareto chart.

requency Bedasarkan analisis dida

produk. Dengan mempe

Frequency

efective product Changed my mind Never received Total

the phone
efective product Changed my mind Never received Total
the phone

Relative Frequency Cumulative Frequency

58% 58%
13% 71%
11% 82%
9% 91%
5% 96%
4% 100%
100%

buted the mos t to caus ing cus tom er dis s ati s f acti on
120%

100% 100%
96%
91%

82%
80%

71%

60%

40%

37
30
26 20%

13 12

13% 11% 9% 5% 4%
0%
rong products shipped Took too long to receive Defective product Changed my mind Never received the phone
 40%

37
30
26 20%

13 12

13% 11% 9% 5% 4%
0%
rong products shipped Took too long to receive Defective product Changed my mind Never received the phone

Frequency Relative Frequency Cumulative Frequency

nsi Penyebab Keluhan Pelanggan

30 26
13 12

ong to receive Defective product Changed my mind Never received the phone

ekuensi Penyebab Keluhan Pelanggan

ekuensi Penyebab Keluhan Pelanggan

30
26

13 12

too long to receive Defective product Changed my mind Never received the phone

Faktor Penyebab Keluhan

std.dev

Mean UCL LCL

47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752
47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752
47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752
47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752
47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752
47.17 207.485879489085 -113.152546155752

Chart Title
informed about the contract Wrong products shipped Took too long to receive Defective product Change

Frequency Mean UCL LCL

me of
manager
ctors
The data in
eriod of 1
ustomers’
to construct

kan analisis didapatkan bahwa misinformed about contact memliki kontribusi terbesar
Dengan memperbaiki hal ini, akan mengurangi keluhan sebanyak 58%.
 120%

100% 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

4%
0%
ceived the phone
 40%

20%

4%
0%
ceived the phone
53.43974
ct Changed my mind Never received the phone
ki kontribusi terbesar dalam pengembalian
k 58%.
 A machine used to average a production rate of 245 units per hour before it went for repair.
After it came back from repair, over a period of 25 h, it produced an average of 249 units
with a standard deviation of 8. Determine if there is a statistically significant difference
between the machine’s productivity before and after repair at a confidence level of 95%.

Solution: Ho ditolak karena nilai t hitung lebih besar daripada t tabel. Maka dari itu dapat disimpulkan
terdapat perbedaan produktivitas mesin secara statistik dari sebelum dan sesudah diperbaiki.

Confidence level 95%

Ho = the machine's productivity before repair and after repair are equals
H1 = the machine's productivity before repair and after repair are not equals

SEM 2.828427
Digunakan uji T two tailed test untuk Hypothesis Testing. Uji ini dipilih karena sample hanya sa

𝜇_0
𝜇_0 245
n 25 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔 2.5
x 249 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙 2.068658
s 8
df 23 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔> 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙
𝛼 0.05
k 2
 per hour before it went for repair.
oduced an average of 249 units
tistically significant difference
pair at a confidence level of 95%.

tabel. Maka dari itu dapat disimpulkan

belum dan sesudah diperbaiki.

epair are equals

pair are not equals

. Uji ini dipilih karena sample hanya satu dan pengujian tidak terarah.
The monthly electricity bills for a company averages $500. The
company decides to cut down on electricity consumption by Tabel 2
encouraging employees to open their window shades instead of Jan
using lights. Twelve months later, the electricity bills were as shown
in Table 2. 479

Can we say that there has been an improvement in the electricity

consumption with a confidence level of 99%? Dilakukan uji T tw
Nilai t tabel lebih besar daripada t hitung, maka Ho diterima. Dapat hypothesis t
disimpulkan treatment yang dilakukan pegawai dengan
mengandalkan cahaya matahari alih alih lampu tidak memberi
improvement pada konsumsi listrik secara statistik.

𝜇_0
n
x
s
df
𝛼
k
Tabel 2
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
509 501 470 489 494 445 502 467 489 508 500

Dilakukan uji T two tailed test untuk

hypothesis testing.
Ho = Konsumsi Listrik Sama
H1 = Konsumsi Listrik Berbeda

0 500
12 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔-2.2028
487.75 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙 3.1693
19.264
10 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔< 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙
0.01
2
A food producer claims that the amount of carbohydrate contained in its bread
is 247 g of carb per loaf. A consumer group decides to test that claim. It takes a
sample of 20 pieces of bread and runs a test. The observations are summarized
in Table 3. Determine if the amount of carbohydrate is really 247 g of carb at a
confidence level of 95%.
Nilai t hitung lebih besar daripada t tabel maka Ho ditolak. Dapat disimpulkan
bahwa kandungan karbohidrat daru roti tidak sama dengan klaim perusahaan.

Dilakukan uji T two tailed test untuk hypothesis

testing.
Ho =Kandungan karbohidrat sama dengan klaim perusahaan
H1 = Kandungan karbohidrat tidak sama dengan klaim perusahaan

𝜇_0 247
n 20 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔 2.81264
x 257.463 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙 2.100922
 s 16.63623
df 18 𝑡_ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑔 > 𝑡_𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙
𝛼 0.05
k 2
 Table 3
283.009 263.273 219.832 236.298
248.934 264.623 275.402 260.859
283.038 235.411 267.245 259.513
272.48 244.518 248.304 277.077
255.197 255.79 250.85 247.606

im perusahaan
n klaim perusahaan
Fouta Electronics and Touba Inc. are computer
manufacturers that use the same third-party call center to
handle their customer services. Touba Inc. conducted a
survey to evaluate how satisfied its customers were with the
services that they receive from the call center. The results of
the survey are summarized in Table 4.

After having seen the results of the survey, Fouta Electronics

decided to find out whether they apply to its customers, so it
interviewed 80 randomly selected customers and obtained
the results shown in Table 5.

To analyze the results, the quality engineer at Fouta

Electronics conducts a hypothesis testing. Please help!
Nilai critical x lebih besar dari nilai count x
maka Ho ditolak. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa
hasil survei Touba Inc. tidak sama dengan Fouta
Electronics.

Count 𝑥^2
Critical 𝑥^2

𝛼
Critical 𝑥^2
Tabel 4 Tabel 5
Categories Rating % Categories
Excellent 10 Excellent
Very Good 45 Very Good
Good 15 Good
Fair 5 Fair
Poor 10 Poor
Very Poor 15 Very Poor

Dilakukan uji Chi- Square Test untuk Hypothesis Testing

Ho = Hasil survei Touba Inc. sama dengan hasi

H1 = Hasil survei Touba Inc. tidak sama denga

Count 𝑥^2

𝑥^2
 Categories Rating % fe 𝑥^2
Excellent 10 8 0.000
Very Good 45 36 0.028
Good 15 12 0.083
Fair 5 4 2.250
Poor 10 8 0.125
Very Poor 15 12 1.333
100 80 3.819

Critical 𝑥^2
df 5
𝛼 0.05 asumsi
Critical 𝑥^2 11.070497693516

Nilai Count 𝑥^2 < Critical 𝑥^2

 Rating (absolute value)(fo)
8
37
11
7
9
8
80

il survei Touba Inc. sama dengan hasil survei Fouta Electronics

il survei Touba Inc. tidak sama dengan hasil survei Fouta Electronics
 An operations manager is comparing the productivity per hour of four
machines. He takes samples of units produced per hour from each
machine and tabulates them in Table 6. Can we say that the
productivities of the three machines are equal with a confidence level of
95%?
F-hitung > F-Tabel maka Ho ditolak. Dapat diimpulkan bahwa perdoktivita ketiga
mesin tidak semuanya sama.

Ho = Produktivitas semua mesin sama

H1 = Produktivitas semua mesin tidak sama Digunakan uji ANOVA un
𝐹=𝑀𝑆𝑇/𝑀𝑆𝐸

𝑀𝑆𝑇=𝑆𝑆𝑇/(𝑑𝑓_𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
SST

Average (𝑋_𝑖 ) ̅

((𝑋_𝑖 ) ̅- 𝑋 ̅)

SST

SSE
Sample 1
2.041
0.184
0.327
0.184
0.184
 0.327
2.469
5.714

SSE
TSS
 Tabel 6
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
23 25 25 23
24 22 25 23 𝑋 ̅

25 22 25 23 𝛼
24 23 24 23
24 24 24 24
25 22 23 24
26 23 26 25

an uji ANOVA untuk Hypothesis Testing

3.987654321

𝑑𝑓_𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 )= 𝑀𝑆𝐸=𝑆𝑆𝐸/(𝑑𝑓_𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 ) 0.964285714

3.8452380952
 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
23 25 25 23
24 22 25 23
25 22 25 23
24 23 24 23
24 24 24 24
25 22 23 24
26 23 26 25
24.43 23.00 24.57 23.57
0.287 0.797 0.460 0.103 1.648

11.535714286

Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

4.000 0.184 0.327
1.000 0.184 0.327
1.000 0.184 0.327
0.000 0.327 0.327
1.000 0.327 0.184
1.000 2.469 0.184
0.000 2.041 2.041
8.000 5.714 3.714

23.143
34.679
23.8928571428571
0.05

ANOVA
DEGREE FREEDOM

df treatmen (between treatment) 3

df error (within treatment) 24
 sources of variance SS df MS F-statistic
betweeen treatment 11.536 3 3.84523809523809 3.987654
within treatmen 23.143 24 0.964285714285714
Total 34.679 7
statistic