iSixSigma

Tom C.

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #67139

    Tom C.
    Member

    Ken,

    I take it that you do not agree with my previous comments on characterizing defects as our customers would prefer the defects to be characterized (not as we would prefer them to be characterized). Is that why you are asking how we prioritize, track, and compare our quality efforts across the company?

    I’d be happy to share that information with you, but first, do you agree in concept or not?

    Tom C.

    0
    #67136

    Tom C.
    Member

    Kevin,

    I think you nailed it right on the head with your comment. Thank you for bringing it up. I’ll rephrase it for everyone in this forum: the customer doesn’t care about your internal measures or what you consider an opportunity. All s/he knows is whether the part (in Ken’s case the printed circuit board) functions properly or not.

    By establishing an opportunity count by adding the number of parts to the number of welds, it may in fact be overestimating the true opportunities. In this case, if a customer finds a defect it is only one defect per 30 opportunities (say 10 parts and 20 welds per board).

    To the customer, they bought 100 boards and one was defective (1/100=0.01 which is ~5.2 sigma). To the business, it would be one defect found on 100 boards with 30 opportunities per unit (1/3000=0.0003 which is ~6 sigma). 5.2 to 6 sigma may not seem like much, but at 5 defects found the spread is 3.1 to 5.6 sigma. Now there’s a big difference — the difference between business mediocrity and a high performing business. All from counting opporutnites.

    Who are we trying to fool, ourselves? The point is that if the customer doesn’t feel the difference, neither will your shareholders. Do what’s right for the customer, not your next performance appraisal.

    Tom C. (Customer, Quality Professional, Shareholder)

    0
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)