posted 07 February 1999 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

May I propose a favorite tool of mine that identifies INPUTS and facilitates control of causes - the FMEA.

---

Agreed, but there are other methods, Slaterâs book, Integrated Process Management, identifies these. That is not to say whether one is better or superior over the other, just there is an alternative to the standard FMEA method. Your method of identifying INPUTS rather than OUTPUTS is an excellent method of systems improvement.

quote:

---

Can someone email me the "giddy girl" thing?

---

I have a Word 6.0 copy at work. Will send Monday. BTW, I have other versions of this test that I will attach as well. Some are more effective that others when getting the point across.

I particularly like interrupting the test takers asking ãlook into thisä or ãwhat is the status ofä type of stuff while test taking. Simulates what inspectors experience and gives MANAGERS what they are expecting of their inspectors.

posted 08 February 1999 09:04 AM            

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach. The realizations that are achieved outperform the* mere teacher-desk-pupil paradigm of learning (at least for me). The interuptions you insert into your practical learning methods epitomize real case settings. This test illustrates the paradigm of "Zero Defects" very well.

Batman,

posted 13 February 1999 08:27 AM            

quote:

---

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach.

---

Yea, you should see the stuff I get when I do the ÎMatchâ test. The concept is communication. I ask the class to instruct me, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, to instruct me, in a written instruction, how to light a match. If you have any other examples, do share.

quote:

---

...lesser known in the Medical Device world...

---

Kevin, if you have experience in the Medical Device arena, do share. I am currently doing the same thing at my current employer (see Medical Device forum) and your inputs would be valuable.

For those interested, a variation on the Îgiddy girlâ test:

Fallacy Of 100% Inspection

Exercise:
¼ Count the letter ãEä in the three paragraphs inside the frame
¼ Total and record the number
¼ You have 5 minutes to complete the exercise

SUPPLY OF OXYGEN AND REMOVAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE RARELY ARE CONSTRAINTS FOR AIR VOLUME; THE MOST COMMON CONSTRAINTS ARE ODOR REMOVAL OR TEMPERATURE CONTROL. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERSâ (ASHRAE) STANDARDS ARE GIVEN IN AIR VOLUME PER PERSON-MIN. TO ALLOW FOR VARYING OCCUPANCIES DURING A 24 HR PERIOD. AREAS WITH SMOKING REQUIRE MORE AIR CHANGES.

IT IS EXPENSIVE TO BRING SUPPLY AIR TO DESIRED TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, AND QUALITY; MOVE IT THROUGH A SPACE; AND THEN THROW IT AWAY. VENTILATION MAY USE AS MUCH AS 50% OF THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING. REUSE THE AIR. THE RECYCLED AIR, PROCESSED TO REMOVE POLLUTANTS AND ODORS, THEN IS MIXED WITH OUTSIDE AIR (FORMALLY CALLED FRESH AIR) AND BROUGHT TO THE DESIRED VALUES OF TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY. FOR INFORMATION ON AIR QUALITY, SEE CHAPTER 6.13.

FILTERS AND PRECIPITATORS ARE USED TO REMOVE CONTAMINANTS AND ODORS. REMOVE CONTAMINANTS LOCALLY (SUCH AS THROUGHT EXHAUST HOODS) RATHER THAN LETTING THEM SPREAD AND THEN HAVING TO PROCESS MANY TIMES THE VOLUME OF AIR WITH GENERAL VENTILATION PROCEDURES. BE SURE THE WORKERâS BREATHING ZONE IS NOT POSITIONED BETWEEN THE FUME SOURCE AND THE HOOD. EXHAUST AIR FROM ãCLEANä AREAS (SUCH AS OFFICES) CAN BE USED WITHOUT PROCESSING AS INPUT FOR LESS CRITICAL AREAS (SUCH AS PAINT BOOTHS, STORAGE). WARM AIR, WHEN RUN THROUGH HEAT EXCHANGERS, CAN PREVENT INPUT AIR AND THUS REDUCE HEATING LOADS. HEATED AIR NORMALLY WILL BE TRAPPED (STRATIFIED) NEAR THE CEILING. IN WINTER, USE A HEAT INVERTER (FAN AT THE TOP OF A VERTICAL DUCT) TO BRING THIS WARM AIR DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE. IN SUMMER, LET THE HEATED AIR REMAIN IN A STAGNANT UPPER LAYER AND KEEP THE AIR CONDITIONING DOWN AT THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE.

posted 21 March 1999 09:29 PM            

Never mind - re-read and it's 85%. Excuse me!

But - since I'm EDITING, I'll also say this:

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when - well, take the Aztecs or folks 5,000 years ago (language is such a wonderful thing!). I wonder how they defined QUALITY or what their equivalent 'word' was. The concept had to come to exist at some point in time. Wonder when....

posted 22 March 1999 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when·

---

I am not certain a Îdefinitionâ existed, but Îqualityâ was, IMHO, considered.

Funny you should mention this. In some of the training sessions I give, I ask a similar question. It goes something like this:

Prior to modern manufacturing techniques, by what standard do you think quality was judged? After discussion, it usually boils down to: form, fit and function.

For example, when the transition from bronze to iron was occurring, it is safe to assume that both cultures co-existed for some period of time. A tribe had made the transition from bronze to iron, whilst his neighbors to the north (or south, either can be used as an example) were still trying to implement the new method (iron). Under the assumption that tribal warfare existed, during battle, the tribe with iron swords would have higher Îqualityâ weapons than the tribe with bronze. Not sharper, just better, using form, fit and function as the criteria. When the scales were leveled (both cultures made the transition to iron), the outcome depended more so upon other factors, such as Îqualityâ of commanders, Îqualityâ of manpower, Îqualityâ of tactics, etc. The same could be said when Europeans started trading goods with Native Americans. The tribes with the European steel weapons were superior in war to those tribes still using stone weapons. The steel knives were higher Îqualityâ because they better satisfied the form, fit and function criteria.

As artisans and craftsmen were used as a source of goods, the craftsman knew that if his goods did not meet the buyerâs expectations, his livelihood was threatened. Going back to the sword example, if a particular craftsmanâs sword failed in battle (broken, too short, dull or whatever), he knew that one, he had lost a customer (dead) and two, if word spread that his swords were not dependable in battle, he would not be getting new customers. After all, who would use a sword of questionable Îqualityâ when his life literally depended on it. The same could be said for housing, furniture or food.

In a war based culture, the artisan that developed superior (higher Îqualityâ) weapons, his reputation was hailed. When his work was inferior, he was beheaded, or some other sort of example setting. This particular aspect of form, fit and function exists even to this day (more bang for the buck is the common expression used). Case in point: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy at the heart of the US-USSR arms race. Therefore, the artisan took great care in assuring his product was superior to his competitor, through probably what we consider benchmarking, inspection and testing.

I know there are examples of Îqualityâ as it related to measurement and specifications. After all, the pyramids and such were not built as they were through serendipity. There had to have been measurements taken and if the measurements were not within a range (tolerance), they were redone. I do not have specific examples to share, just logic REQUIRES that it had to be.