Thanks to all of you for the responses. The pain here that my sponsor has brought to me is the fact that the inconsistencies in our Work Order invoicing practices makes comparisons across all stores difficult and limits our ability to identify best practices and improvement opportunities. I am talking with my MBB today to discuss how to get the…[Read more]
I agree that you have to be cautious looking at the coordinates compared to an inflated tolerance can give a false sense of security on the measurement system. But you cannot only look at the system to itself (% Study in Minitab terms) because that does not give you an understanding if the measurement system is adequate to meet your needs. It i…[Read more]
That is a great idea and I have tossed that approach around.
Getting data to analyze isn’t the issue. The question with that approach is what tolerance is used compare the X & Y coordinate to?? If there is a true position callout of 0.010, what does that translate to in terms of a X & Y coordinate tolerance?
I’ve been using catapults since the 80’s, and I purchased several from a man (wood worker guy actually) while I was at Texas Instruments and BAE Systems in Austin. The picture of the catapult you posted is THE catapults he built in Austin. I will look for his address, which I hope to have at work.Oh, and there is a BIG difference in catapults,…[Read more]
HF Chris Vallee,
I agree with you 100%. Stopping at a containment action (unless the containment and permanent corrective actions are the same) does not prevent the root cause from re-occurring. Yet, both containment and permanent corrective actions are needed. The band-aide stops the boat from sinking; giving time to implement a permanent co…[Read more]
HF Chris VAllee,
Customer Issue: A permanent corrective action was not provided.
Comments: You make an excellent point. I provided the containment action but not a permanent corrective action — for example either a sign-off procedure by another individual to validate the entry or some other procedure is needed to prevent the error from h…[Read more]
Customer issue: Establishing Values for Factors in a DOE
Issue with the Problem Statement: You should have included the units of pressure. Mm-Hg, atm, lb/in*in etc.
DOE Factor: I believe that both Jane and Robert covered many key issues that you need to be aware of. Here are three more thoughts:
(1) Why widen the pressure window…[Read more]
Customer issue: When is a root cause a real root cause and do I stop finding root causes
Conclusion: Keeping identifying root causes and removing the causes until the project objective has been meet. If you decide to make further improvements beyond the project goal, create a new six sigma pr…[Read more]
Customer Issue: Need to achieve 25 ppm defect rate or lot will be rejected
Terminology: The words specifications and test limits are two different things. In my work, the customer establishes the specifications. From the specifications test limits are established. The test limits are smaller than the specification limits. For exam…[Read more]
Nice job. The example really brings home the point. The correlation between factors A & B is very good. The p-value for the population means is not statistically significant. Yet, the p-value for the paired analysis shows a statistical difference. I used excel for the example and these are the number that I obtained are below.…[Read more]
numbers of samples were exposed to the same treatment (heated 45 minutes at 350F) at the same time. In which case, the great example given by Bower Chiel reinforces the power of a paired comparison.
ANOVA not = var
(1) What is COV?
(2) Your demand model is ambiguous. You state, delivered to a processing facility (on a fixed transportation schedule)… This is predictable. What is not predictable is the demand from your customer that determines how many items will be on the transportation vehicle. Is your demand a sine wave or a…[Read more]
A Bit of Slang: Wow! I like your detailed explanation. Understanding as much science surrounding a problem is a significant part of good engineering.
What is next: The next part of good engineering for Ks type of problem is to obtain data an estimate the risk. This effort is worth while from several points‑of‑view. Here are just…[Read more]
Addition: I must modify my previous comment to more accurately state what I think you should do.
Customer Issue: to Passivate or not to Passivate a re-worked part.
Part of Solution: You need to perform the following experiments with (1) the original parts before reworking, (2) reworked parts, and (3) reworked and repassivated parts. …[Read more]
Customer Issue: to Passivate or not to Passivate.
Part of Solution: You need to perform the following experiments with the reworked parts, and reworked and repassivated parts.
Experiment: Perform an accelerated reliability tests and see what happens, and be a little late with the delivery.
Customer issue: FMEA produce “paralysis by analysis”
My Thoughts: A two hour meeting for an FMEA is too long. There are four major reasons an FMEA is done: (1) Customer driven, (2) audit driven, (3) management driven have to get it done, or (4) product quality team driven. Since the meeting lasted two hours, I expect that one of the fir…[Read more]
Customers Problem Statement: The issue of course is that if we only consider monthly volumes of received/defective parts we get PPMs that are all over the place, for instance.
Objective: Establish a metric that is of greater value to management.
Assumptions: (1) You are working to improve supplier quality. (2) An incoming insp…[Read more]
You guys can laugh at the following statement — you made a mistake when you read my statement.
I said: Using interferometry based contact gauges, I can easily see a resolution of even less than 0.12 um = 1200 Angstroms.”
- Load More