Sampling rate should be dictated by consideration of both the economic impact of undetected shifts in the process as well as the physical causes of these shifts, and not a simple In this regard, the process volume is not inherently linked to the number of subgroups or the resulting number of false alarm signals. With respect to its implications on process volume, SPC is typically applied as a means of evaluating samples from a process,.In other words, the false alarm rate of the process is not dependent on whether it is a Six Sigma process or a two sigma process. Would expect a false alarm (a subgroup beyond the three sigma control limits when the process has not shifted) about once every 370 subgroups regardless of the performance level of Widening the limits (to four sigma for example) would increase the probability of failing to detect real process shifts. Tighter limits (such as two sigma, for example) increase the falseĪlarm rate to unacceptable levels (about 5%). In the case of a control chart, three sigma levels provide an inherent balance between these issues. Every statistical method involves a balance between two conflicting properties: a false alarm rate and a failure to detect realÄifferences.Of course, this can further create a fallacy working with Six Sigma (as I have seen it here and there) that as long as the process is meeting the DPMO requirement (2ppb or 3ppm depending if the process is centered), it is running great without even considering the distribution of the output within plus and minus Six Sigma range! This, to me, is contrary with the first principle/test/requirement for a process to be under control (as outlined above, any occurrence beyond three sigma means problem!). Of course, for this process, I guess all the parts beyond three sigma and below Six Sigma are also definitely accepted without any problems anyway process is not considered to have any issues or no investigations/adjustments are called for. However, to add to that, let's say now, if a process is running at Six Sigma level (being under control, with a Cp = Cpk = 2.0), a 2ppb out of specification occurrence is considered to be expected and this process is considered to be running fantastically. This is particularly very critical as occurrence of any point beyond the limits are considered to be indicative of out of control / special cause / shift of the process mean scenarios which, again, will call for strong reaction up to and including adjustment of the process when it may not be needed at all! This is a fairly high rate which I think can present itself as an occasional observation for and in many high volume production processes (including service companies once their output opportunities are considered) right? In other words, I think the three sigma limits are too tight to allow such natural variability, in particular, as will be bound to happen in high volume processes. However, such an event (beyond plus and minus three sigma) can happen 3 out of 1000 times. What I do n o t quite understand is mainly related to the fact that for a process to be under control the output is compared with the long-term plus and minus three sigma limits, and, observing an out of control event (beyond these limits) will then call for investigation, possibly stopping the process, trouble-shooting, adjusting the process, etc. Control Charts based on 3 Sigma Limits (Additional)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |