Hello all,

I saw the many responses that Christina got for her participation request and I hope that the members of the forum can help me, too, by taking a survey that takes less than 3 minutes.

I am working on my Masters and as subject I am working on introducing a structured problem solving approach into my department that fits the departments needs based on the resources and is based on something like best practice. I tried to get into contact with some companies to talk to their QARs or QMs but I did not receive a single answer. My Professor sees the survey as necessary to complete my thesis :bonk:.

The questions are based on researching what problem solving methods are existing. I found a lot of it in the different threads of the forum (Thanks to all for the many informative threads and materials :applause:).

The purpose of the survey is to see what other people in other companies in other sectors do.

I will be glad to share the results in the forum later (if you are interested or not! :D)

THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP!!!
:thanks:
Joachim


http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=469407

I completed the survey. There are two questions regarding workforces ("How many people work for your company?" and "How many work at your location?") I resisted the temptation to answer "Less than half of them."

I completed the survey. There are two questions regarding workforces ("How many people work for your company?" and "How many work at your location?") I resisted the temptation to answer "Less than half of them."
Thanks for taking the time.

I first thought about asking "How many employees are on the payroll at your location" but I remembered what my boss always tells me : " you need to think positive!!" :biglaugh: Sometimes it's difficult to do so.......

I completed the survey. There are two questions regarding workforces ("How many people work for your company?" and "How many work at your location?") I resisted the temptation to answer "Less than half of them."I guess I don't have Jim's sense of humor - I found myself irritated at the term "continuous improvement" versus "continual improvement" used in most venues.

I guess I don't have Jim's sense of humor - I found myself irritated at the term "continuous improvement" versus "continual improvement" used in most venues.
Hi Wes,
since I am not a native speaker I don't know what the difference between continuous and continual improvement is? Would you mind explaining it to me?

Thank you.

Joachim

Hi Wes,
since I am not a native speaker I don't know what the difference between continuous and continual improvement is? Would you mind explaining it to me?

Thank you.

Joachim
Continual is chiefly restricted to what is intermittent or repeated at intervals: The continual banging of the shutter in the wind gave me a headache. Continuous implies lack of interruption: The horizon is a continuous line.

therefore
continual improvement implies a program of examining processes at regular intervals (after it has been established the process is in control) to determine if some change might (may?) result in an improvement. Often an experiment or series of experiments (DOE, Taguchi, etc.) is performed to test out theories of improvement.

continuous improvement is practically impossible because it does not take into account the practical matter of determining an existing process is in control and gives an implication the improvement is a continuous curve versus a series of steps of different heights.

I saw the many responses that Christina got for her participation request and I hope that the members of the forum can help me, too, by taking a survey that takes less than 3 minutes.
Certainly... I completed it too, and I am looking forward to see how the no. of known methods compares to the no. actually used...

/Claes

Continual is chiefly restricted to what is intermittent or repeated at intervals: The continual banging of the shutter in the wind gave me a headache. Continuous implies lack of interruption: The horizon is a continuous line.

therefore
continual improvement implies a program of examining processes at regular intervals (after it has been established the process is in control) to determine if some change might (may?) result in an improvement. Often an experiment or series of experiments (DOE, Taguchi, etc.) is performed to test out theories of improvement.

continuous improvement is practically impossible because it does not take into account the practical matter of determining an existing process is in control and gives an implication the improvement is a continuous curve versus a series of steps of different heights.

Thank you Wes for the explanation. That makes sense and I think I will use the wording in the way you just explained. Nobody else in my company does...let's see if they know the difference!

I completed your survey. Good Luck!

Wish you the best of luck in completing your thesis!!:D

Your location is Conn which isn't far from NH... what school are you attending? What is your discipline of your degree?

This has to be the best discussion board for responses, both for the survey and discussion of concepts... the quality (HA HA) is outstanding!!

Please if I can help, feel free to PM me!

Christina:agree1:

Continual is chiefly restricted to what is intermittent or repeated at intervals: The continual banging of the shutter in the wind gave me a headache. Continuous implies lack of interruption: The horizon is a continuous line.

therefore
continual improvement implies a program of examining processes at regular intervals (after it has been established the process is in control) to determine if some change might (may?) result in an improvement. Often an experiment or series of experiments (DOE, Taguchi, etc.) is performed to test out theories of improvement.

continuous improvement is practically impossible because it does not take into account the practical matter of determining an existing process is in control and gives an implication the improvement is a continuous curve versus a series of steps of different heights.

IMO, in what we're doing, it's a distinction without a significant difference. If were to take a retrospective view, we might see continuous improvement that came about as a result of continual efforts. If we are continually better at each interval when such things are checked, we've evinced continuous improvement.

:thanx:

Just a quick thank you to all that took the time to fill in the questions. As soon as I am done processing the data I'll present the results here.

Thanks again for the help.

Joachim
:thanks:

IMO, in what we're doing, it's a distinction without a significant difference.



fully agree - no one identifies with the subtle difference.

fully agree - no one identifies with the subtle difference.What am I? Chopped liver?:( I identify with the difference, subtle or not.

What am I? Chopped liver?:( I identify with the difference, subtle or not.


Not chopped liver, rather a finely minced pate... ...how's that for subtle differences?:D


Seriously, we all recognize the slight difference in the technical definition. But, in your day to day work, do you feel the distinction between the two makes any difference whatsoever?

Not chopped liver, rather a finely minced pate... ...how's that for subtle differences?:D


Seriously, we all recognize the slight difference in the technical definition. But, in your day to day work, do you feel the distinction between the two makes any difference whatsoever?

I look at it this way: Let's say that we're being audited, and the auditor finds some serious deficiency in document control, such as multiple instances of obsolete work instructions or drawings in use in production. The auditor can point to the specific requirements in the standard, describe the intent, and show how the current state of affairs fails to meet them.

Now suppose that the company has described its improvement efforts as being "continuous" instead of parroting the standard and saying "continual." Nonetheless, there is a discernible pattern of improvement efforts, and evidence that supports it, and there's no evidence of a significant lapse in either the efforts or the improvement. Would anyone scold the company for calling what they're doing "continuous" instead of "continual"? Is there any evidence anywhere that calling an improvement method one or the other had an actual effect on the outcome, positive or otherwise?

Continuous Improvement - Perpetual (Webster = "uninterrupted extension") improvement made every day, hour, and minute. This term was unrealistic and therefore changed in the standards to continual improvement.

Continual Improvement - Non-ceasing (Webster = "recurring in steady succession") acts to enhance value, excellence, quality, or simply: to make things better than they were before.

Instead of it being an entity of its own in an organization, e.g. having its own procedure or "process" or other such thing, it should be an evident and intrinsic part of the management environment. A chief goal of top management should be that no process in the organization ever stagnate. Everything must get better over time.

Evidence of continual improvement can then be found in MANY areas:
- Strategic Business Planning
- Benchmarking
- Training & Education Initiatives
- Corrective & Preventive Actions
- Audit OFIs
- SPC
- Reliability Growth
- Waste reduction
- ETC.

Survey done. Good Luck!

Instead of it being an entity of its own in an organization, e.g. having its own procedure or "process" or other such thing, it should be an evident and intrinsic part of the management environment.

Agreed. But if it is an integral part of the culture, what possible difference does it make what you call it?

A chief goal of top management should be that no process in the organization ever stagnate. Everything must get better over time.

It depends on which sense of "stagnate" you use. There are, and always will be, processes that are as good as they're going to get unless some significant new requirements or technologies emerge. The belief that everything must be constantly (notice the sidestep :cool: ) improved leads to tampering and fixing things that ain't broke. We have to use rational, pragmatic thinking and planning when it comes to making things better. T

FYI - I completed the survey but I hope that I didn't skew any answers since our product is software and service related. Since we don't manufacture widgets, our main concern is keeping our fixes in the main stream and preventing a one-off (or unique) version from being in the field.

Agreed. But if it is an integral part of the culture, what possible difference does it make what you call it?



It depends on which sense of "stagnate" you use. There are, and always will be, processes that are as good as they're going to get unless some significant new requirements or technologies emerge. The belief that everything must be constantly (notice the sidestep :cool: ) improved leads to tampering and fixing things that ain't broke. We have to use rational, pragmatic thinking and planning when it comes to making things better. TIn a practical sense, I consider the concept of "continual" improvement to refer to the EFFORT of periodically evaluating processes in light of new knowledge, equipment, materials, etc., with a view toward determining whether improvement of an existing process is economically viable for the organization.

The key (which some of my colleagues in Six Sigma and Lean environments sometimetimes overlook) is the NET improvement for the organization, not just for the individual process under examination. When Neutron Jack was running GE and making wild statements about billions of dollars saved in Six Sigma initiatives, he somehow never got around to explaining why those billions never made it to the bottom line of GE. The truth is the financial burden of many of the 6S initiatives was merely transferred to another division or entity, creating a zero sum situation in all but a few cases where true waste was ELIMINATED, not transferred.

Do not interpret this as a screed against 6S or Lean. I am, after all, one of the charter members of the ASQ Division now known as Lean. My "noble contention" is that many folks use terms without thought for the real meaning underlying those terms. When rank amateurs (bosses and managers?) see those misused terms, they wrongly ascribe the literal meaning to them and create unrealistic expectations for the organization and its denizens. We are not in the position of the Lewis G. Carroll character in the Disney version of "Alice." who says, "Words mean exactly what I choose them to mean" We are constrained to use words without a special jargon meaning known only to the initiated. The more we try to be exclusive, the less we are "inclusive" and the more estranged we become from the very people we are supposed to be helping create quality goods and services.


:topic: speaking of the difference between liver and paté, my home town has banned paté de foie gras - does this mean I'll be banned from my home town?:rolleyes: Chicago bans foie gras

We've written a great deal in columns over the years about the famous stuffed geese and their prized livers which were used for making pate de foie gras, a delicacy.

That industry went by the wayside here [Wisconsin] decades ago because of a number of circumstances, including the extreme amount of work involved, government regulations for transporting the stuffed geese across state lines and of course some negative publicity about cruelty to the geese because of the way they were force-fed their food which consisted primarily of noodles.

Well, now Chicago, which is known for its great dining, has banned foie gras for that very reason. The Chicago city council has banned this delicacy and must be off the menus, even at the swankiest restaurants, by June 26. Failure to comply could lead to an initial fine of up to $500. Can you imagine a $500 fine for serving this delicacy that at least in part made Watertown famous? We'll bet there were a lot of farmers that didn't even get 5 percent of that fine for one of their fine birds!

So, if you're in Chicago between now and June 26 it will be your last chance to taste this delicacy there.
This ban goes for grocery stores, too! and wholesalers with Chicago facilities. These fatty goose livers run about $70 per pound at premium poultry retailers. At that price, I would certainly be worth a lot!:biglaugh:

We are not in the position of the Lewis G. Carroll character in the Disney version of "Alice." who says, "Words mean exactly what I choose them to mean" We are constrained to use words without a special jargon meaning known only to the initiated. The more we try to be exclusive, the less we are "inclusive" and the more estranged we become from the very people we are supposed to be helping create quality goods and services.

The quote you refer to is in the Lewis Carroll original (Through the Looking Glass) and the following lines are instructive in this context:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

We are not "constrained" to avoid jargon, except in instances where meaning might be lost or obscured. No one who hears the phrase "continuous improvement" believes that if you stop improving for two seconds, you're in violation of the standard. Even the lexicographers acknowledge that "continuous" and "continual" have senses in common. The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, says in its second sense for "continual," Not interrupted; constant.

No one who hears the phrase "continuous improvement" believes that if you stop improving for two seconds, you're in violation of the standard. Even the lexicographers acknowledge that "continuous" and "continual" have senses in common. The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, says in its second sense for "continual," Not interrupted; constant.
My intent was to point out the uninitiated might expect actual improvement versus effort toward improvement. Further, an expectation the improvement would continue like a perpetual motion machine, constantly incrementing, ad infinitum.

The point is we experienced quality folk recognize the realities and limitations, but the uninitiated may not, especially without additional input from an experienced practitioner. In this light, I am embarrassed to say at least one self-declared spokesperson (not elected or appointed to any office) for one of the ASQ Divisions is writing pure pap in the Division Forum. Since the readership is limited to the initiated, most of us just chuckle and shake our heads at the effrontery and naiveté and don't bother to correct this person. Private correspondence from other ASQ members shows a consensus that such pronouncements would have to be countered or put into perspective if they appeared in a public Forum.

Hi,

here some first results of my survey. It is non-representative and I would call it a snap shot.
The main results are not really surprising:
for immediate problem solving and root cause analysis the methods and tools to use are 8D and 5Whys. For continual improvement or proactive process improvement Demings PDSA, Kaizen and 6Sigma are the choice.

It seems also that 6 Sigma is prefered in big organizations (the Quality Digest survey says the same http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov04/articles/01_article.shtml).
Quality professionals seem to prefer Deming over 6 Sigma.

Thanks to the 44 participants in this little survey.

:thanx:

Please let me know what you think about the results. The excel sheet has some of the data. The pdf is a little description of some of the results, no discussion of the results yet.
Jo

Hi,

here some first results of my survey. It is non-representative and I would call it a snap shot.
The main results are not really surprising:
for immediate problem solving and root cause analysis the methods and tools to use are 8D and 5Whys. For continual improvement or proactive process improvement Demings PDSA, Kaizen and 6Sigma are the choice.

It seems also that 6 Sigma is prefered in big organizations (the Quality Digest survey says the same http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov04/articles/01_article.shtml).
Quality professionals seem to prefer Deming over 6 Sigma.

Thanks to the 44 participants in this little survey.

:thanx:

Please let me know what you think about the results. The excel sheet has some of the data. The pdf is a little description of some of the results, no discussion of the results yet.
Jo
The problem with your survery is that "Other" makes up a larger percentage of the answers. You should look at what the other ones are.

The problem with your survery is that "Other" makes up a larger percentage of the answers. You should look at what the other ones are.
Thanks Steven for looking at the results. ANd you are right. Other is always very high. The entries range from own method, none, tampering around and other general comments to more tools that weren't given as a choice (Cause and Effect Diagram, 2+2 Workshop, 20 keys, is-is not).
So I think, if I redistribute the entries in 'other' based on their meaning than the results in my prior post are still correct.

Do you have a suggestion how to evaluate the data? Currently I am not really applying any statistical tools to it. I just sort and rearrange. Than I look at it and note down what seems interesting.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Jo

Thanks Steven for looking at the results. ANd you are right. Other is always very high. The entries range from own method, none, tampering around and other general comments to more tools that weren't given as a choice (Cause and Effect Diagram, 2+2 Workshop, 20 keys, is-is not).
So I think, if I redistribute the entries in 'other' based on their meaning than the results in my prior post are still correct.

Do you have a suggestion how to evaluate the data? Currently I am not really applying any statistical tools to it. I just sort and rearrange. Than I look at it and note down what seems interesting.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Jo
Jo, the analysis is fine. If you took the other list and offered them as choices, you the results might be different. People when give then option to choose a candidate that is specified versus writing one in will select the candidate that is closest to what they would have written. I guess what I should have said was, in your thesis, make sure you pay attention to the other category in the written section