Erik 2018
@erik2018Member since February 7, 2018
was active active 6 months agoForum Replies Created
Forum Replies Created

AuthorPosts

March 24, 2020 at 3:20 am #246796
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.@MikeCarnell: sorry forgot your name
0March 24, 2020 at 3:20 am #246795
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.@Straydog: sorry posted a wrong name.
0March 23, 2020 at 11:25 am #246786
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.@Strayer. Okay but is DPMO always long term? Does not it depend on your sample size? Otherwise both DPMO and sigma level are short term and no 1.5 conversion have to be carried out
0March 23, 2020 at 11:23 am #246785
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Looking back at these answers I am still interested why it is not poisson instead of binominal?
0November 13, 2019 at 11:03 am #243478
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.One question regarding your example:
Example : Suppose that we have a process with this characteristic:
Example:
Units/shift = 30,000
Defective parts = 300
Defects observed = 350
Opportunities = 15
Dpu = 350/30,000 = .011
DPMO = (.011/15) x 1,000,000 = 777
Yield : 1(0.011/15) = 99.9922%
ZBench : 3.164 *From normal distribution tables
Sigma Level: 4.664
CPk Process: 1.55If you calculate zscore based on current yield, why do you add 1.5 tot get short term sigma? Isn’t the zscore (based on current defects) the short term sigma and the long term sigma 3.1641.5 = 1.6164?
0April 10, 2019 at 2:52 am #238350
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks for all your replies. At the moment we use a control chart just for analysis of a few weeks of production. Based on an histogram and a control chart we could determine out of control situations, variety within the control limits and track both back to certain Xs. You’re right that using output just for control without analysis is useless, even more when the desired output changes each hour. However, in this case it is the output on the bottleneck, which needs to produce a certain amount of products each hour. An hour lost on the bottleneck is an hour lost for the company (that’s what Goldratt learned me). In that case, I was interested in which control chart to use.
Speaking of tracking Xs, what do you mean exactly if I may ask. E.g. we can regard cycle time as the dependent variable (amount of minutes per hour/desired output per hour), which is maybe a more useful performance indicator than output. What I was wondering, what do you regard as tracking Xs? Or do you mean tracking a subdivision of the Y. E.g. I can imagine that we track downtime as it could be an important part of the cycle time of a product. However, this still isn’t an X, but part of the Y (the same as waiting time is not an X but part of throughput time (throughput time = waiting time + production time + …). What would you track in those cases e.g. in a run/control chart?
0March 27, 2019 at 6:38 am #237590
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks for all your responses. Indeed, it depends maybe on your aim of making a SIPOC (and luckily no jail if you do it otherwise:)). In our case we have students carrying out a LSS green belt assignment in practice. As they are unfamiliar with the process to improve at the start of their internship, we think it is very useful to have a SIPOC like described before. If later on in the analysis phase they focus on part of the processSIPOC, they can easily find the inputs of that specific phase + the direct suppliersof these inputs. If you have the inputs summarized for alle the process steps, you need to filter them afterwards.
0March 26, 2018 at 12:38 am #202389
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Thanks! By the way, why is it based on a binominal distribution? Isn’t it about defectives (a part could have many ctq’s/defectives) which corresponds with a Poisson distribution?
0February 14, 2018 at 5:02 am #202272
Erik 2018Participant@Erik2018 Include @Erik2018 in your post and this person will
be notified via email.@straydog Thanks. Never thought about that. This implies that it is more and more difficult to achieve higher sigma scores, the higher your current score is. Am i right?
@GomezMGab Thanks. But this implies that the transformation from binominal to a normal distribution can only be done when p is not that high, isn’t?0 
AuthorPosts