In the article you referenced, the abstract states that
“Three counterexamples show that the “component search” technique may give no information for reducing the number of candidate factors when third- or higher-order interactions exist”
Although an interesting statement, the fact remains that 3rd order (or higher) interactions are…[Read more]
In one of his strips, Scott Adams addressed this by putting Dogbert in the shoes of a Six Sigma expert. it is rrather simplistic, but it does answer you question.
Dogbert: The first step is to identify your problems
Pointy Hair Boss: We don’t have any problems. What’s the second step?
Pointy H…[Read more]
Having not seen the original post, I don’t know what data was used, whether this is for a single CTQ or for the entire product, etc. Nor do I know what was considered and “Opportunity”, as this could make your sigma be whatever you want, ie MTBF per run hour will be 3600 times higher than MTBF per run second (I’ve seen that game played…[Read more]
The link you provided I can’t get to work (broken?)
Your gage is probably fine, you selected your parts incorrectly for the study. The GRR number you got was high because there was so little part-to-part variation. When I estimate the % tolerance, that is, how much of the spec range is being consumed by the gage, I get ~10.7%, using t…[Read more]
A good way to check if your samples were chosen properly is to perform the GRR in Minitab (assuming you are) and run the Percent Tolerance option. This can be done by filling in the “Process Tolerance” field in the GRR menu pop-up under the options tab.
Stat>Quality Tools>Gage RR>Options>”Process Tolerance” field
Put in your USL-LSL…[Read more]