iSixSigma

What Do You Do After a Process Is Stable?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums General Forums Tools & Templates What Do You Do After a Process Is Stable?

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55602

    jeff
    Participant

    I am currently in the black belt course and was wondering who can answer this question: after I have determined that a process is stable what do you do next? I wrote “continue to monitor for signs of instability” but was told that is incorrect. My next answer is “continue to improve that process for better centering” is this sufficient??!

    0
    #200683

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @Mase357 – I can answer it. But won’t give you the answer. Your first answer isn’t incorrect, merely insufficient. Your second answer may or may not be correct. Since you have determined stability, what other aspects of the data would you be interested in understanding (hint: there are 2 primary, and you’ve identified one of them). Once you understand them, what actions might they tell you need to be taken. Good luck.

    0
    #200684

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    Just because a process is stable doesn’t mean you’re meeting requirements….think of the measures for meeting customer requirements and then my friend @MBBinWI will have more thoughts.

    0
    #200724

    jeff
    Participant

    @MBBinWI once i determined the process is stable I can move on to calculating process capability to determine if it will meet customer specifications in its current state or if process improvements are needed

    0
    #200726

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Mase357 If you will get hold of Juran’s book Managerial Breakthrough from 1967 and read the first few chapters on the difference between Breakthrough and Control it should become apparent to you what you should do. When you know what then see MBBinWI on how to do it.

    That comment about centering is way off base. If you take some Time to understand Taguchi’s Loss function you should be able to understand that the optimal target for a process is not necessarily centered.

    It sounds a lot like you have someone feeding you academic dogma. You need to step back and think some of this stuff through on your own.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #200728

    jeff
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell I really appreciate your comment and I I’ll definitely use your references! I have thought of it on my own but needed clarification from an expert. Again thank you for your guidance

    0
    #200744

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @Mase357 – assuming that you have good spec limits, process capability will only tell you how good, but not specifically tell you where you need to look to get better. What information would you need to know to determine if your problem is that the process cannot repeatedly meet the specifications because the items are not consistently close to one another or that on average the items created are not at the desired level?

    Once you identify that information, which of these do you think is more important to evaluate and if not “good” should be addressed first?

    0
    #200750

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @mase357 Maybe to help a bit with what MBBinWI said. Let’s assume you are plating gold (I know there a bunch of people going “Not the gold plating example again”). You have a spec of 900 angstroms to 1500 angstroms. Do I center that operation? Now if you do let me explain what happens. The VP for you section shows up in your office and says “for what you are costing me in scrap gold I can drive a XXXX’in Lincoln Continental off a bridge every day.”

    Basically if we understand the Loss Function that target for the gold is the lower spec limit otherwise I am giving away gold. The only way I can target the lower spec limit is if I have a standard deviation of zero and that isn’t going to happen. So where do I target? I can set the target for 3sd inside the Lower spec and I can calculate how much I will need to scrap. I can set it for 4sd or 5sd, etc.

    Hopefully that helps.

    0
    #200753

    jeff
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell Now that is how I learn! That was a great example and provided the clarity I needed! I’m new at this so I appreciate the patience and mentorship from you and @MBBinWI

    0
    #200754

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Mase357 You are welcome. You need to understand that what is being taught now is different than what we developed at Motorola and took to GE and Allied Signal. It was developed to be a breakthrough strategy and has been morphed into variation reduction basically because in general people do not understand the difference. Read the Deviant’s Advantage by Watts Wacker. SS has made the journey from the Fringe to social convention and is consequently left with about 10% original content.

    It has become about tools because basically you can teach a cocker spaniel to teach tools. The idea of original thought is pretty much gone. Basically the same way they emasculated TQM.

    I am going to plug my own stuff right now. Rob Tripp and I wrote an article called “Toolbox. We don’t Need No Stinking Toolbox” It is on this site somewhere. Rob and I tried to get people to understand this is about thinking. You might want to read that. If it is good please let me know. If it isn’t well there is no need to dwell on that.

    0
    #200756

    jeff
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell this is great info and I will definitely read what you suggested! Again thanks for the mentorship! By the way You are hilarious!

    0
    #200759

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Mase357 You are welcome. I keep telling my wife I crack me up but I don’t think I have convinced her yet. Now I can show her in writing. It’s on the internet.

    0
    #200769

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @Mase357 – you want funny? Ask @mike-carnell about the chair incident. Now that’s funny!

    0
    #200770

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @mike-carnell – btw, been making any gold lately?

    0
    #200771

    jeff
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell well let’s hear it MIKE!

    0
    #200772

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @Mase357 – getting back to your original question. You need to identify what is the true objective. That will always be dependent upon the situation. As my friend @mike-carnell identifies in his gold example, it will be to minimize the give away of excess gold. In other circumstances it will be to reduce the variation of the output. There is a famous study from Ford/Mazda about transaxles. Both produced the same transaxle design, but the Mazda produced transaxles were noticeably different than the Ford produced transaxles. The difference was that the Mazda production had much less variability than the Ford produced parts. All were within spec, but those with less variation were noticeably better than the others.

    0
    #200774

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @MBBinWI @Mase357 I never threw a chair at that guy in Miami. That was some hack trying to give me a bad name on the internet. Ask Katie she was there @KatieBarry.

    The gold thing seems to work well for explaining that whole centering deal. When it comes to giving away gold people get it really quickly. Having that VP sitting in my office actually happened too and that is exactly what he said to me. The up side to reducing my gold useage is the VP used my gold for plating (sputtering) used my gold targets to play the gold market. The less I used the more he had the happier he was.

    0
    #200776

    jeff
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell MIKE I may be inclined to believe you tossed the chair… lol

    0
    #200779

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Mase357 A lot of people were inclined to believe it. I was at a conference last September in Philadelphia and it came up again after about 7 years. I am not sure Consuelo is convinced I didn’t do it.

    0
    #200780

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @Mase357 – I wasn’t there, but I swear, @mike-carnell did as alleged. That’s the story, and I’m sticking to it.

    0
    #200783

    Katie Barry
    Guest

    @MBBinWI @Mase357 @mike-carnell No chairs were thrown. #notanalternativefact

    0
    #200785

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @KatieBarry Thank you. Consuelo says hello.

    0
    #200786

    Katie Barry
    Guest

    @mike-carnell So nice! Hi right back to her. :) Tell her she has excellent taste in movies!

    0
    #200793

    Craig Tickel
    Participant

    @MBBinWI I was surpized to find the Ford video about the Mazda transmission analysis on YouTube awhile back… it wasn’t available for some time, so I was glad to find it. Definitely worth a watch if people haven’t seen it.

    0
Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.