iSixSigma

Bob and Wow

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Bob and Wow

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32137

    Sorour
    Participant

    I have a customer with an issue in which my product and the product of another costomer have been shown by a single BOB and WOW exercise to have an interation, Changing just one or other of the parts leads to partial change. According to the regular laws of Physics it is not possible for my product to induce the issue, it can however react the forcing from the other component to a greater or lesser degree. I have the impression that my customer is targeting my product as the root cause because fixing the other product is too hard. Each time we have discussion he uses the BOB and WOW as some kind of definitive proof that my product is at fault, however, using regular laws of physics it can be reasoned that all of the other product provides forcing, some to greater or lesser extent, and my product as explained resists to a greater of lesser extent. It would not therefore be unreasonable to expect BOB to become worse when presented with a product that does not resist the forcing, and for the BOB to become WOW when both products are changed. Could this be a fundemantal flaw in this methodology in that parts which are to design and spec are being used to react another components inputs, and the wrong component targeted and accused of being root cause?

    0
    #85439

    vidyut bapat
    Member

    Paul, It seems we need to know more details.
    I understand your customer is an assembler and you are a part supplier and he is proving your part is at fault.
    Looking from your customer angle, he should conduct a full “component search” and share his findings with you. It will perhaps show that your part together with some other part (parts) are responsible for his problems. and both then need to make necessary changes/ improvements.
    It will also help to replicate with more bob and wow , to give more information.
    Am sure your customer can help you this way.
    Vidyut Bapat
     

    0
    #85442

    john beaudoin
    Participant

    Sounds like someone has done a Design of Experiments on the interactions of the 2 products and there is some statistical evidence that there is a correlation of some component of the 2 products.  Of course, there needs to be some repeatablility to see that the correlation isn’t the result of a fluke of nature for the one time a test was ran, but if it is repeatable, then there is an issue, regardless of the laws of physics.  If you are in doubt, I would suggesst puchasing a BOB and WOW for your own experimentation/root cause analysis.
    Of course, your problem has been presented so vaguely, that it is pretty hard to come up with anything that could help you.

    0
    #85444

    Sorour
    Participant

    My customer did a Component search as I said, the result being as I described, Unfortunately, this was done before a Guage R and R had been completed on the measurement system used to evaluate BOB and WOW and has not been repeated since.
    As I said in my previos mail, unless some new law of Physics has been discovered lately, our component cannot supply the forces necessary for the issue to manifest itself without external interactions. The other component provides this force. We have spent a lot of money trying to support this customer in meeting his demands, all of which stem from the application of this approach. The issue is not caused by our product, yet we are being expected to carry all this additional cost, and at the end of the year the buyer will ask us for a price reduction. My issue is that the application of 6 Sigma when so blindly followed appears to make people forget their education and the applied laws of Physics, Costs seem to dissapear out of the window, and suplliers whose component so clearly does not “cause” the issue are expected to carry lots of additional unplanned, unbudgeted work as a result.

    0
    #85445

    Sorour
    Participant

    John,
    I wish someone would do a design of experiments, the customer seems to be unable to decide on what should be in the DOE, I think because it would indicate that they should try and fix the hard bit to fix. We have been asking for some testing on the finished product, support for this has however been very slow in forthcoming. There is a reason I am afraid that this string was so vague, I have confidentiality agreements to worry about.

    0
    #85446

    Sorour
    Participant

    John,
    Just to add, there is no doubt that there is an interaction between the two products, the interaction is, a force is applied from the other product which is resisted by ours, for which the product was never designed, neither was it a part of the design brief that it should or that there would be such forcing from the othe rcomponent. I am sure that the result will be a design change to our component because as I said, fixing the other part is too hard.

    0
    #85447

    john beaudoin
    Participant

    Makes sense.  The big issue is with the contract between you and the customer, and who will have to pay for the redesign.  That will be for the legal people to decide.

    0
    #85453

    Mikel
    Member

    John,
    How did we go from vague descriptions, vauge references to physics, and vauge understanding of a problem to needing lawyers? I missed that as part of Six Sigma training.
    This person needs to go get some data and stop sitting in a conference room talking theoretical stuff!

    0
    #85461

    john beaudoin
    Participant

    Paul and I are just on the same page….
    Having been in management for 10 years, having a 6-Sigma blackbelt, an aerospace engineering degree from Purdue, PMP certification training, and working half way through an MBA from the University of Kansas, allows me to make pretty good assumptions and have a general understanding of businesses and contractural relationships.  That is the difference between purely analytical and management types.  There is a lot of truth in these statements, but I am also laughing pretty good as I’m writing them.

    0
    #85470

    Mikel
    Member

    John,
    It is a good thing you are laughing too. That way you are the only one not laughing. I hope you don’t actually believe what you said.
    The guy needs to get out of the theoretical and go get some actual data. It seems to me that the customer has a real problem.

    0
    #85484

    TMC
    Member

    In this situation one needs to ask if the customer specification was met.  Were the agreed to requirements and testing method clearly documented in the contractural purchase order.  If the requirement was outside of the agreed to requirements you need to re-establish the requirements and testing methods, both FAT and LAT and re-bid the contract.

    0
    #85485

    Mikel
    Member

    How do you do that by talking theory instead of understanding the problem by taking data?

    0
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.