Simulation 2 Write-Up During the simulation there were many different factors leading to varying results. One of the biggest causes for variation was in the performance of the worker. The worker had the impression that they were under a time constraint. The performance of the worker was usually kept constant until the last 5 or 10 drawings of cards, which is when the worker felt the pressure to draw cards faster. Another cause of variation was the shuffling of the worker. If the worker didn’t shuffle the cards thoroughly it would result in a varied outcome from normal results. This variation is considered a normal cause for variation because as the time constraint became more noticeable the workers would shuffle differently. This occurred more on the last few draws each round. One special cause occurred when the professor walked over to our workstation and had a conversation. This distracted the worker and simulated a special cause for variation. In order to improve the process, I would first designate a worker for shuffling the cards so we could eliminate time used passing the cards. This worker would then split the cards into two piles. Then I would assign two other workers the jobs of counting the cards after they have been separated. The workers would then both tell a single recorder the amounts to be recorded. This would be repeated with the designated shuffler. In order to assure that the second supplier is delivering the promised quality, we made a second quality control chart. This would be done using the same process as the first round. According to our results, the second supplier delivered better results. The proportion of hearts varied less with the second supplier. Using only 15 samples we were able to draw this conclusion. It is half the samples as the other round but due to the fact that the variation was significantly smaller, even if we did 30 rounds the results would be very similar. One thing I took away from the simulation is how division of work can increase efficiency. Our group started implementing a program similar to a division of labor towards the end of the first round and the second round. This not only increased the quality of the “product” that our “company” created, but it helped increase worker efficiency. This is similar to real life situations in which a business needs to also focus on its internal processes. There are several times where a business may want to blame someone other than itself. Using our simulation results we significantly increased our efficiency by changing worker processes.