{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

Measurement Widgets

Our dependence on tools comes with a stiff price

Umberto Tunesi
Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:28
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

Editor’s note: Umberto Tunesi is a new columnist for Quality Digest. He brings his auditing expertise to bear on a surprising range of subjects, and we’re happy to add his European perspective to our mix. “I realize I’m being tough on the ISO/TS 16949 and AIAG manual writers, as well on performance-monitoring criteria,” he tells us, “but I guess I wouldn’t be writing for QD if I weren’t such a nasty guy. For centuries, my family’s motto has been ‘Crazy but just.’ ” We think he’ll fit in pretty well around here.

Where I was born, in a town close to Milan, Italy, there’s a saying: “When you have no memory, you have no history” and vice-versa. If there’s something that measurement policies, systems, and devices don’t measure, it’s the capability of human memory.

 …

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 Rip Stauffer on Sat, 03/10/2012 - 20:53

Great Column

Great Column, Umberto! I have seen most of these problems at many organizations. I agree that it's foolish to consider Cpk without also considering Cp. It's doubly foolish (and shows a complete lack of understanding) to insist on some level of Cp/Cpk and also insist on 100% inspection. I've long felt that a customer should insist that each lot of incoming parts should contain a control chart for the run that produced that lot, and the capability study. THEN I would know what I have...no acceptance testing or further inspection should be necessary. That, of course, would require working with the suppliers. This is what Deming talked about 30 years ago...most manufacturers got part of that lesson, but missed the profound knowledge that would let them truly understand it.
  • 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