{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

Keeping It Real

Mon, 07/07/2008 - 20:49
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body
I was working with a client to create their business’s critical performance measures the other day, and one of the managers said, “We should set the target higher than we want it—you know, aim high to hit low.” This set off one of my rants, and I thought I would share it with you.

When I worked as an engineer, we would get requests from customers for tighter-than-standard specification limits. I’d do a little control and capability analysis to see if our process was capable of meeting the requested limits. If so, then we would approve the change. If not, I could estimate the amount that would go out of spec over time, and we could calculate the increased cost of scrap due to setting the tighter limits. In some cases, we would go ahead with the change, knowing that it would cost us more money, either because the scrap cost was small or because there was some other reason to accept the loss. (Knowing what I know now about the Taguchi Loss Function, we probably lost money on most of these changes due to the increased nonscrap losses.)

One day I called a customer to say that we wouldn’t be able to meet their tighter limits. “I’m sorry,” I said, “but our process just is not capable of it. Actually, I don’t think there is a process out there that is capable of it.”

“Oh, we know,” he said, “those specs are a lot tighter than we really need.

 …

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

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