• @rbutler / @cseider – good to see the two of you are still here.  Hope you are doing well. 2 years, 6 months ago

  • @stephanieareid – you mis-interpret my comment.  I don’t doubt that they work together – I was merely inquiring how the original poster thought they work together.  Too many posters here look for others to do their homework (due diligence that they could figure out themselves if they just did some basic work).

    My years of experience show me t…[Read more]

  • @andy-parr, @mike-carnell:  Sorry, it’s been a while.  Very busy dealing with my own brood.  Took on an NPD Dir role a couple of years back with a group of younger engineers who have little background/understanding of DfSS.  So, I’ve been busy teaching them and they have been teaching me about commercial ovens and cooking equipment.

    Best to you…[Read more]

  • @michaelcyger – not sure exactly what the left side icons are supposed to be doing for me. I have numbers next to the bell, the envelope, and the group of people. When I click on the envelope and group of people, it doesn’t take me anywhere. btw – using IE11 on Win 7 Pro. 3 years, 7 months ago

  • @michaelcyger: Congrats. Looks nice. I agree performance is much better. Also agree with @rbutler that the forum listing missing is a real drag.
    @cseider: If you just type the at sign and the first few letters of the handle you are looking to tag, a dialog pops up to select from (even has their avatar/pic if they have one – very helpful). 3…[Read more]

  • @felixveroya: After 3 years, how have things been going? You didn’t mention what type of engineers you were looking to motivate. I assume manufacturing engineers. I have found that reward programs usually bring about cycles of fixing the same problem (it is easy to keep “fixing” the same problem instead of rooting out the cause to begin with).…[Read more]

  • @Mike Carnell: Good advice.
    @Jessica: As Mike cautions, be wary of someone who is a religious devotee of a specific methodology. I like to see if the person is flexible enough to seek out new/different tools to help them solve their issues. For example, many BBs slavishly look to the lowest Cpk value or highest DPMO levels. Having studied…[Read more]

  • Good points all. I agree that RTY is probably the best way to evaluate your overall quality. You apply DMAIC continuous improvement methods to improve process capabilities until the costs of better improvement outweigh the benefits. Then (or before, depending on the focus of the organization) you should apply DfSS to change the underlying…[Read more]

  • All good points. For something like this, I would choose a spider chart. Each of your main categories becomes a spoke from a central point. You plot the score from each along this spoke and then connect the lines. This helps to identify strength areas and weak areas. You can do the same for the details within each category. This way, you get…[Read more]

  • @andycroniser – why don’t you provide your explanation and we can give you feedback? 4 years, 8 months ago

  • @cseider – been quite busy, so haven’t had much chance to check out the board. Hope things are well with you. 4 years, 8 months ago

  • @cseider – please check your private messages. Any interest? 5 years ago

  • @rubennicolas – depends on what you consider a “project.” At this point, you have already identified the issues, so Define isn’t needed. But essentially, yes, you attack each issue in order of potential results to be obtained. The biggest defect creator might not offer the best chance of reducing defects, so evaluate those you have identified…[Read more]

  • @rubennicolas – also, in the last 4 weeks you seem to have an inverse relationship between input and yield. Perhaps at lower inputs the process is better able to convert, so as inputs go up the conversion (yield) goes down. Food for thought. 5 years, 2 months ago

  • @rubennicolas – after only 1 bad week you are considering that your results have stabilized at 93%? I see 3 weeks prior that are above 96%. I don’t think that your process has stabilized yet. You may have had some of the improvements slide back to the old method. I think you really need to establish some controls and ensure that they are…[Read more]

  • @dando – not sure exactly what you are trying to evaluate here. Typically, interactions are caused by the inputs, not a result of the outputs.

    In trying to understand your query, I took your data and did some sample graphical analysis. I took what you identified as the X value (input) and some of the Y (outputs) and graphed them. I used two…[Read more]

  • @djnrempel – as @straydog mentions, a control chart is used to evaluate stability. While you might get some use out of a control chart to evaluate changes caused by various programs, it would not be my first choice. I would instead be looking at an hypothesis test such as a two-sample t test, or perhaps more appropriately if you are applying a…[Read more]

  • @rbutler – still very funny. And I stand by my statement that selecting a p-value sets a line in the sand (one that is absolute, not like our previous president). 5 years, 2 months ago

  • @rbutler – very interesting. When I teach (taught, as I hope not to have to teach this again, being back in the practitioner phase) about the p-value, I always emphasize that statistics is shades of grey, but when selecting a p-value, you are selecting between black and white. You must be willing to identify a level of significance that if it is…[Read more]

  • @mike-carnell – I’ll take your opinion over most people’s “facts.” Have a great Memorial Day! 5 years, 2 months ago

  • Load More