[RC]

You’re beating a dead horse.

0

[RC]

do your own homework.

0

[RC]

Let me see if I have this right. Are you measuring the reliability and reproducibility of operators or machines?If you are doing operators I would say that you’re trying to see how different operators _calculate_ predicted load at .100 in. deflection. So are you giving them Stress and Strain constants?

0

[RC]

Herein lies the problem:”I do not THINK…”What do you KNOW?

0

[RC]

perhaps the customer (Picard) has already consulted a list of categorical variables from which to choose how his tea is made. This list dictates what type of item he orders. Hot is already predefined at a set temperature and he possibly has 2 other options available: warm, and cold. These other options being at predetermined settings.Perhaps this machine also only dispenses hot earl grey tea. If that’s the case, then the waste is the fact Picard even has to ask. He should just walk in proximity to the machine and get the feeling that he already had hot earl grey tea and has already passed it. Waste in that case, would be something entirely different.

0

[RC]

Oh that brings back memories of making sure you’ve remembered to convert the g constant!

0

[RC]

Ron, I am one of the premier Six Sigma Consultants in my cubicle area. I have come to this conclusion by doing a survey of my office supplies in my top left hand drawer. The results showed that these office supplies feel that I am the best at stapling and tacking in my cube, extremely talented, and perceived as best in class as there is no second.

0

[RC]

What does the ISSC (International Soup Standards Commission) have to say about the specifications for the composition of chicken soup? 100% chicken is chicken, not soup.

0

[RC]

I have a rule: no use of acronyms (or pronunciation of acronyms) without first identifying them. After you define to the group what they stand for, you can pronounce them however you want. As long as those to who you are communicating understand and accept the reference.
Take a philosophy of language course.

0

[RC]

Dee Em Ay Eye SeeThat’s how it’s pronounced and if you hear different, you’re hearing wrong.

0

[RC]

I really think the gas gets turned on after doing a FMEA and attacking the pertinent items from that also.FMEAs really stoke the fire.

0

[RC]

Isn’t Sigma Level inherent to the observed process? Isn’t it also true that a better comparison of processes is their respective DPMO, PPM?What issue needs to be debated? The performance of banks in what regard?a potential loss function measuring what? Brain cells from trying to decipher this post?

0

[RC]

Isn’t Sigma Level inherent to the observed process? Isn’t it also true that a better comparison of processes is their respective DPMO, PPM?What issue needs to be debated? The performance of banks in what regard?a potential loss function measuring what? Brain cells from trying to decipher this post?

0

[RC]

Are there 2 RC’s?

0

[RC]

Q1) -350
Q2) .10
Q3) ?
 

0

[RC]

Well, really you want to analyze what is known as VOC, Voice Of the Customer. So the customer would be you, internally, or your patrons, hotel guests, external. You want to keep your ears and eyes open for any sort of complaint.I would then investigate that complaint and try to quantify or qualify it in terms of its current performance. This could be Good, Bad, Ugly, or it takes X, Y, Z amount of time to do such and such. Then I would estimate how much this complaint and performance is costing you in a dollar amount and go with the not necessarily the biggest cost but a manageable one. Think “low hanging fruit”. If you start too big, you won’t achieve buy-in from your superiors or your team members. If you start in smaller manageable chunks, you will gain more confidence in Six Sigma and further projects will be much easier to initiate.After you’ve got a target it’s DMAIC time!

0

[RC]

Exactly.
What I’m proposing is that isn’t there a point where the “risk” is spending too many resources on a project to increase process performance to produce a yield that is significantly lower than a yield that would be produced if the same resources were directed at a process that is at a lower sigma level?
I’m saying that wouldn’t opportunity for greater improvement be realized if you shift your “focus” to more “low hanging fruit” or a poorer performing process, say 1.5 sigma to 2.5 sigma target, rather than trying to get from, for example, 5 sigma to 6 sigma target or whatever we deem the threshold to be for LoDR (law of diminishing returns) on one process?  Only when you have most of your “low hanging fruit” picked should you go for the top of the tree.
So I hope that my tone isn’t perceived as trying to avoid going for higher performance, rather, going for the most accessible opportunities first (identified in Define phases of proposed projects) and then using this as a staging platform to escalate performance across the board.

0

[RC]

Good point, Mike.  Like a shark, if you stop swimming, you’ll drown.  I also like to keep in mind that with a business perspective it’s not always necessary to acheive a perfect process performance but simply to acheive a process performance better than that of your competitors.

0

[RC]

Of course there is no “universal” correlation between sigma level and cost of improvement, the relationship varies from application to application. In one case a company for whatever particular thing they are trying to control might see nixing out a few more defects to be too costly and wouldn’t continue. What I meant by being constrained by the Law of diminishing returns is that in that objective environment, couldn’t the increase in a sigma value be seen as producing less and less of a reduction in DPMO?

0

[RC]

Wouldn’t a FMEA show the most significant failures based on a rating system?If your categories are appropriate enough, then it shouldn’t be a problem. The “criticality” of the words is dependant on how you categorize them. If house number is more critical than the street spelling, this should be evident in the FMEA based on the weight of that category. I would say that house number is weighted more than the spelling of the street name. Then depending on the street name and how many letters it has, you have a permutation for the number of opportunities and defects, right? You can get as specific as you want to.

0

[RC]

Why is it useless and meaningless? I would say that 3.4 PPM is not necessarily significant to everyone at every time, however, using simga levels and DPMO is useful in communicating the performance of your process, is it not? It is another way of expressing Cp and Cpk; jargon that helps professionals communicate effectively.

0

[RC]

As Socrates famously said “I know nothing.” :) I wouldn’t say that it necessarily “kicks in” at this point, rather, 6 sigma seemingly lies at the highest threshold of attainable improvement for moderate investment of effort.

0

[RC]

That is, if perfection is defined at 99.9996600 % Conformance or 3.4 Defects per million opportunities. You can of course reach closer to perfection (100% conformance 100% of the time) with a larger sigma value. However, this effort is certainly limited by the Law of Diminishing Returns.

0

[RC]

My replies haven’t been showing up as when I click on my own reply it simply brings me to the forum list and doesn’t display the text of my message.

0

[RC]

Sounds to me like you are not a Black Belt or trained in Lean or Six Sigma. If you are asking someone to do the data analysis for you the just ask – do not beat around the bush.
I have seen a lot of links on this web site in which it appears that people that are not trained want to have others provide the answers to their projects.
There a a number of non-parametric tests that can be applied to non-normal data if needed. 

0

[RC]

Hello Monk,
I agree with Philips approach, I think it’s very innovative. People shouldn’t listen to you.
I think you’re a shame to the six sigma profession, how about that?
RC

0

[RC]

The answer to your question depends heavily on how you define success.  If completing projects using the DMAIC construct is your definition, then yes, there have been “successful” organizations without the leadership from the top.  If you define success to be the type Jack Welch popularized, where six sigma becomes ubiquitous and the entire company benefits for years from six sigma activity, then I would offer my observation that no, this doesn’t happen without the effective leadership form the top. My personal opinion is that the latter definiton is the prevailing expectation from most managers and executives, so the leadership role cannot be avoided if six sigma is to “succeed” in most organizations.

0

[RC]

vijay The 3 parameters are distance, preassure and voltage.
How many of them are independent? I don’t know I’m traying to find it.
and the length of the weld is in milimeters
Thanks for your help.

0

[RC]

The experiment already was made, but with limited results, but now I’m going run it again with the advice that you have given me.Thank you very much for your help

0

[RC]

I think the answer to this question, as noted in one of the above replies, is whether or not you want to dig into statistics.

But if you are wanting to apply the concepts of Six Sigma to strip down your processes of service and then double your speed, quality, or just improve the process, look no further than Jay Arthur’s Book Six Sigma Simplified, from http://www.quantum-i.com.

He has created several simple worksheets you can apply most processes or problems to and work through it. Our organization is very small, but it has helped us break down our processes in a simple way and improve them without tons of statistics (but it would help if we had more).

If anything, get this book to see if Six Sigma is for you, it is a solid primer, if not anything else.

0

[Author]

Posts