Michael Clayton


  • @mclayton200 NICE JOB!!! You are posting to a thread from March 2012. Way to stay on top of things. 7 years, 4 months ago

  • @mclayton200 – very true. However, this thread was amusing to follow. For those of us who understand the intricacies of the capability indices and how they are derived, this was a row between a PhD and a […] 7 years, 6 months ago

  • @mclayton200 Very succinct and I agree. Should have tried that instead of your initial ramble.

    Wheeler isn’t controversial, he is impractical. Pretends thing like specs don’t exist but that doesn’t work in reality.

    I think you will find most of us would never use a gauge study to justify a new gauge. You do that if needed by looking to see…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 Two things –

    Wheeler is a smart guy but his rants about GR&R are just that. If I know Wheeler’s number, I can derive all the others or vice versa. How can that be a superior method?

    Your previous ramblings that said absolutely nothing had nothing to do with Wheeler. Those that take several paragraphs to say nothing, know…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 If you don’t know the answer, just say so.

    Everybody else, good discussion but it’s not just Cp, it’s Cpk or Cpm too.

    Back to Tom’s original question, we have to assume it’s %Study he’s talking about and the answer is who cares if a little more than 20% of the variation is coming from the measurement process? 8 years, 8 months ago

  • @mclayton200 – Mike: Your point A supports, instead of refutes, my point. The customer always sets the specs. It is when we lose that perspective, that we begin to lose our focus on “quality” and begin gaming the numbers.

    No time to continue this discussion now. Perhaps later. 8 years, 8 months ago

  • @mclayton200 – spec values should never be determined based on the process. Specs always come from the customer. When you begin to “set” specs based on process variation, you have lost all credibility in your capability analysis. By its very nature, capability is what we can do compared to what we need. The mistake in most organizations is not…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 – Mike, you take a very simple issue and add unnecessary complexity. You finally get to the crux of the issue, but @paulonis did so much more succinctly.

    Folks, you need to understand what all these various tools are telling you, and not just take “canned” answers/approaches. A Cpk of 1.7 says you have a pretty good process (of…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 Yes, I laugh when people ignore or weren’t told which s.d. to use in Ppk. It’s a language and we should know to use it. I also am quite wary when people quote sigma levels because I often find people will use short term data and then still add a modifier like 1.5 and state the “sigma level”.

    It is amazing how many folks out…[Read more]

  • @joelatminitab
    Always good to read your perspective.
    I wanted casual readers to NOT misinterpret your comments…they must be urged to know you had your tongue stuck in your cheek.
    Classy treatise

    Generally, I don’t understand this “thinking” that specs are at the leisure of a facility or supplier to determine.…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 — great to see you back on the forum, Mike. Here’s your original profile (, and we can get you back into that one if you’d like. Just email editor @ isixsigma dot com and @KatieBarry will take care of you. 8 years, 11 months ago

  • @mclayton200 I like the approach and the simplicity of the initial contact. So many want to go in with guns blazing and use a strange language and insist on a full blown implementation. The basic approach is we’ve got the solution, what’s your problem? Pretty dumb, and the executive who buys it deserves what they get.

    We too go in selling one…[Read more]

  • @mclayton200 – the objective was NOT to use jargony verbage. 8 years, 11 months ago