{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

If It Ain’t Broke…

But what’s the definition of broken?

Shana Van Roosbroek/Unsplash

Donald J. Wheeler
Mon, 06/16/2025 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

For many hundreds of years, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has summarized the predominant approach to process operation. From the physician’s admonition to do no harm, to the slightly more positive aphorism that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, there is a common theme of differentiating between those things that need to be attended to and those that don’t. When your process is in trouble, then you should do something about it. But when your process is operating OK, then leave it alone.

ADVERTISEMENT

In production, the most common definition of trouble is “too much nonconforming product.” The common picture that comes to mind is that of Figure 1. Here, the process average is satisfactory, but the variation about the average is the problem. With these specifications, you’ll have to reduce the process variation to reduce the amount of nonconforming product.


Figure 1: Traditional concept of trouble

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Don Wilson (not verified) on Mon, 06/16/2025 - 10:27

Reducing variability

Great article Donald! Reducing the spread of an in-control process often pays big benefits. Too often allowable process variability is the result of what engineers accept at what the process is “capable of” without focusing on the inherent variability in addition to assignable “shifts and drifts”. As a teenager watching drag racing, it was apparent that cars that had tightened the tolerances out performed the others by a wide margin. In adult life, I worked with medical device companies whose reduced “natural variation” were recognized by doctors in operations and recovery of their patients.

  • Reply

Submitted by Geraint Jones (not verified) on Mon, 06/16/2025 - 10:58

Masterful Column

Another fabulous article with the imparted knowledge  based upon a complete mastery of the subject both from a theoretical and practical perspective.

Thank you Sir!

 

  • Reply

Submitted by HJCannon_37 on Mon, 06/16/2025 - 12:41

If It Ain’t Broke…Improve it

Another masterful article and learning from Don Wheeler. Dr Deming always loved his discussions with Dr Wheeler and this commentary is a perfect example of why. Thank you Don for this gem. Hazel Cannon, The Deming Forum

  • Reply

Submitted by Al Izadi (not verified) on Mon, 06/16/2025 - 14:33

process behavior

Excellent article Dr. Wheeler!

I really like the way you explained and related the concept to Entropy...

"Process behavior charts" is a much better term than "control charts"....

Thank you 

al

  • Reply

Submitted by Sergey Grigoryev on Tue, 06/17/2025 - 04:13

Thank you, Dr. WHEELER!

Dear Dr. Wheeler,

Thank you for your articles and insights in explaining complex topics in an accessible way.

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us