JSM 2005 - Toronto

Abstract #304036

This is the preliminary program for the 2005 Joint Statistical Meetings in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Currently included in this program is the "technical" program, schedule of invited, topic contributed, regular contributed and poster sessions; Continuing Education courses (August 7-10, 2005); and Committee and Business Meetings. This on-line program will be updated frequently to reflect the most current revisions.

To View the Program:
You may choose to view all activities of the program or just parts of it at any one time. All activities are arranged by date and time.



The views expressed here are those of the individual authors
and not necessarily those of the ASA or its board, officers, or staff.

The Program has labeled the meeting rooms with "letters" preceding the name of the room, designating in which facility the room is located:

Minneapolis Convention Center = “MCC” Hilton Minneapolis Hotel = “H” Hyatt Regency Minneapolis = “HY”

Back to main JSM 2005 Program page
Legend: = Applied Session, = Theme Session, = Presenter
Activity Number: 489
Type: Contributed
Date/Time: Thursday, August 11, 2005 : 8:30 AM to 10:20 AM
Sponsor: General Methodology
Abstract - #304036
Title: Sequential Sampling Inspection Protocols Could Save Money in Real Time: A Case in Connecticut in Point
Author(s): Nitis Mukhopadhyay*+
Companies: University of Connecticut
Address: CLAS Building, UBox 4120 , Storrs, CT, 06269-4120, United States
Keywords: Binomial sampling ; Design ; Two-stage sampling ; SPRT ; Efficiency ; Money savings
Abstract:

The State of Connecticut bought 10,000 computers/servers from a contracted supplier. These computers were supposed to include specific internal hardware. The state's technology department inspected 4,000 pieces from this delivered batch and found only 58 "good" ones, that is they met the state's specification. It turns out the inspection protocol that allowed the checking of 4,000 computers was at best outrageously wasteful. An appropriately designed inspection strategy could have concluded that the supplied batch was far below expectation with fewer than 10% inspections with near certainty. This is a stunning example of the fleecing of taxpayer's money where sequential sampling inspection could have truly helped.

  • The address information is for the authors that have a + after their name.
  • Authors who are presenting talks have a * after their name.

Back to the full JSM 2005 program

JSM 2005 For information, contact jsm@amstat.org or phone (888) 231-3473. If you have questions about the Continuing Education program, please contact the Education Department.
Revised March 2005