Two of our readings in this module (Vandenbrande, 2005; & Anderson & Anderson, 1998) discuss Design of Experiments from relatively straightforward or simple perspectives. Vendenbrande makes the specific point that DOE isn't applied as much as it could be, sometimes because potential users of the techniques perceive it as much more statistical and complicated than it needs to be. Anderson and Anderson apply DOE to making microwave popcorn and get a positive result, while Vandenbrande applies DOE to evaluating two tomato fertilizers and gets a negative result. Both of these DOEs seem legitimate and well thought out.

Consider the simplicity of these two DOE examples. Next, consider the assertion that DOE isn't put into practice as often or deeply as experts feel it should be. Describe and discuss the roles that simple examples like these might play - both positive and negative - in contributing to this lack of acceptance and penetration of the DOE techniques in practice. For example, is there obviousness to the conclusions of these simple examples that might actually contribute to hurting people's perceptions of DOE? In providing such simple examples, do we sometimes actually inhibit management's ability to properly visualize the true value that DOE could provide in more realistic (and therefore complicated) situations? Do these types of examples help support the required early learning, and, if so, are there typically articles out there that support learning at the next level of complexity? Try to draw a conclusion about why DOE isn't practiced more widely in most workplaces.