Performance metric in a product spec

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Performance metric in a product spec

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #34279


    I’m working on a Six Sigma project in which the team discovered that the product specification for a particular feature on a machine is not specific and lacks the adequate definition of a measurement.  There is no quantitative and measureable defintion for this feature spec which is attributing to customer sat issues.  As a team we developed a perfomance metric which is specific and measurable for the machine.  Should this now be included as part of the product specification? Product specifications are derived from product launch requirements of the product development cycle and I would suspect that metrics that measure the performance of the machine should include performance metrics. … or should this be established and maintained in Quality files and inspection processes?I would appreciate some thoughts.Thank you.Frank 



    This should be included as part of the product specification. The core of Six Sigma lies in eliminating the defects. If this is included in the product definition, there is more probability that the product will meet specifications.
    Adding it to the review list will not solve much of the purpose as it will be a inspection only. The probability of finding defects will be more in this case and thus Sigma will be less.
    Please let me know your views on it



    Don’t forget to review and update your APQP, Control plan, FMEA, etc. to include any product specification changes as well as transfer this knowledge to other similar products.



    One root cause in my project is that there is no measurable performance metric that aligns to the product spec of the machine performance issue we are addessing.  Developing and testing this new performance metric has allowed us to measure the real effectiveness of proposed enhancements for a specific and key functional attribute that has contribute to customer dissatifaction.
    I am a strong proponent (and my team has recommended) that the metric get’s incorporated into the product spec document and is review as any other design change is reviewed.  Others have suggested making it part of Quality control which I oppose. 
    I also see it a precursor to launching new products (essential req’t for the product development process) which is another recommendation I will make on behalf of the team.
    As you alluded, if we could preempt the prospects of defects by defining the appropriate metrics upstream (in design) we can avoid costly inspection processing downstream however engineering has demonstrated some resistance since we now have a way to measure the effectiveness (or ineffectivenes) of their proposed solutions and the impact to the customer.
    Thanks again.



    Dear sir:
    The problem what you met is common issue, in fact, in some situations, it is very difficulty to directly measure a product by quantified indexs, my opinion is:
    1. According to SixSigmg basic rules, the defect means the defect of CTQ(critical to quality), it does not directly equal to defect of  product. so, your performance metric must cover CTQs.   but sometimes, can not cover product directly.
    2. Sometimes, we deem know a feature is critical to product quality, but, we can not quantify its impact to product , this feature still is a CTQ.
    3. For yuor case, I think the most important thing is to identify CTQ and its measuring criteria.
    Thank you for your attention!

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

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