{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02047005307050796, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006065200909780136, 'mean_word_length': 5.666666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Estimating the benefits of a quality circle Note . , , . intervention

Recently, American organizations have been implementing quality circles at a rapid rate. Paradoxically, such implementation decisions are generally not based upon evidence regarding the effectiveness of these interventions. In part, this result derives from the contradictory needs of researchers and practitioners. Whereas the former have traditionally emphasized the use of statistical tests of differences among treated and control groups to illustrate an intervention s effectiveness, practitioners assess the value of these interventions based upon projected dollar returns or savings. One technique, referred to as utility analysis (Landy, Farr and Jacobs, 1982; Schmidt, Hunter and Pearlman, 1982), integrates both concerns to demonstrate the dollar impact of an intervention s productivity effect size. Such a procedure allows decision-makers to assess the likelihood that their organization will obtain financial value from implementing a quality circle. The present study (as part of an ongoing evaluation of a quality circle intervention) illustrates application of the utility procedure and demonstrates how the results enable managers to make a rational appraisal of the impact expected from implementing a quality circle intervention.