The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

100% Inspection - 80% Accurate - Quote from Juran (?)


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 15th November 2001, 12:26 PM
RCW's Avatar
RCW

 
 
Total Posts: 470
Question Quote from Juran (?)

I need some help here.

My registrar told me of a quote from Juran (?) saying that in 100% inspection there is an 80% chance of finding the problem (if it exists). If three people inspect the item and they know that someone else has inspected it, the chance of finding the problem drops to 60%.

Does anybody know if these numbers are correct and where that quote came from, if it was indeed from Juran?

Contrary to what the intro to this forum says, I don't have a copy of Juran's Quality Handbook, mainly because my boss is a penny-pinching cheapskate , but that's another story.

Thanks!

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 15th November 2001, 12:40 PM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

 
 
Total Posts: 1,221
RCW,

Dr. Juran noted that inspection was at best, 80% accurate. Others have guessed less, but that doesn't really matter. Think of it this was. One inspector is .8 in 1 chance likely to find a problem. The second inspector has the same chance. However, if you take .8 and multiply it by .8 (the second inspector), your outcome is .64. With the second inspector, your odds are reduced thus making 200% inspection 64% likely to find a defect.

Dr. Deming offered this in regards 200% inspection: Inspector 1 thinks inspector 2 will catch the defect while inspector 2 thinks inspector 1 will catch it. Net result: nobody inspecting.

I hope this helps.

Kevin
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 15th November 2001, 01:53 PM
Jim Biz's Avatar
Jim Biz

 
 
Total Posts: 486
Quote:
I don't have a copy of Juran's Quality Handbook, mainly because my boss is a penny-pinching cheapskate
RCW - can't garuntee anything I'ts been awhile since I looked in my library archives - but I may have a copy you could use.

If yer interested Shoot me an E-mail & I'll look around this evening.
  Post Number #4  
Old 15th November 2001, 01:53 PM
Al Dyer

 
 
Total Posts: n/a
RCW,

I'll sell you my book for $60.00!!!

100% inspection is as bogus as saying my gage does not have wear and shouldn't be calibrated.

If your boss is that cheap you are in trouble. Try this as a test:

1: Take 10 parts that you know are flawed;
2: Employ 3 random employees to measure the parts;
3: Tell the trio that there are 5 good and 5 bad parts;

(if you really want to get sneaky call it an R&R test)

4: Record all off their results and review the data.

Reply back to the forum after you present the results to your boss.
  Post Number #5  
Old 15th November 2001, 09:44 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc

 
 
Total Posts: 25,678
Re: Quote from Juran (?)

Quote:
Originally posted by RCW

My registrar told me of a quote from Juran (?) saying that in 100% inspection there is an 80% chance of finding the problem (if it exists). If three people inspect the item and they know that someone else has inspected it, the chance of finding the problem drops to 60%.
Kevin explained the guts, but remember: This is only true for human inspection. A 100% poka yoke (mechanical/electronic/electro-mechanical) 'inspection' is a different animal.

> I don't have a copy of Juran's Quality Handbook, mainly
> because my boss is a penny-pinching cheapskate

You may not like me saying this, but it's worth it to buy it for yourself. For me it's mainly a paperweight now, but if you looked at mine you would see it is well worn, marked up all over and has saved my butt several times. When I sat for my CQE over 10 years ago it was close to a bible for me. To me it is a tool. I wouldn't want one from an employer unless it was agreed it woud be mine to keep. I want it in MY library!
  Post Number #6  
Old 15th November 2001, 09:48 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc

 
 
Total Posts: 25,678
Quote:
Originally posted by Al Dyer

I'll sell you my book for $60.00!!!
What edition?
  Post Number #7  
Old 16th November 2001, 09:15 AM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

 
 
Total Posts: 1,221
I stand corrected. Thanks Marc!

Browse ebay for Juran's hanbook. Not too long ago I found a fifth edition copy selling for an opening bid of $60 (oddly enough). There are many great deals there folks for books for a small fraction of what they originally sold for. In addition, you can shop amazon or borders used books. Please read the fine print!! Many copies are in terrific order, others have highlighting and marked pages. I bought a back up copy of Out of the Crisis for $10 including shipping. In all honesty, this is in better condition (still stiff when you open it) than my own copy at home which I paid $60 for.

Happy hunting!!

Kevin
  Post Number #8  
Old 16th November 2001, 10:09 AM
RCW's Avatar
RCW

 
 
Total Posts: 470
Thanks for all the responses!

Here's a little background info on my original question:

1. Upper management and the sales dept. have always bragged to customers that we only use 100% inspection and no SPC is used here. (We are a small electronics firm that produces small quantities (1 - 10 pieces) of circuit boards, cables or wired panels, so it is hard to justify using SPC for the small quantites).

However, the big-wigs make it sound like 100% "visual" inspection catches everything, which it doesn't.

2. Recently, due to excessive workloads, product has been getting out of here with minor defects (i.e. missing labels, missing i.d. stamping). So the directive from upstairs is that more people have to check the product before it goes out the door. This brought to mind the quote my registrar told me about that adding additional "eyes" to inspection actual reduces the odds of finding errors. That's why I wanted something in writing to show the disbelievers.

3. I'm also planning to use Al's suggestion of the mock R&R study. While your example suggests measuring parts, I'm sure that it can also be applied to visual inspection (i.e. finding missing solder from connections).

4. As far as getting a copy of Juran's book, I'm trying to obtain a copy through an inter-library loan, to examine the book for merit. And no, I'm not insulted by the suggestion that I buy my own copy. It's just that (and I don't mean to step on anybody's toes) I'm an electronic technician and a computer science major who is masquerading as a Quality Manager. Through a bad decision of my own and a raw deal from the then president of the company, I ended up being "the quality department". It's because of this that I can't see dropping my personal money on buying the book.


Much thanks to those out there in this forum for all the help and input received for this lost soul. It warms my heart to find a place where I can find practical information instead of glossed over double-talk.
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Accuracy (Accurate) - Definition Marc Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations 4 5th June 2015 05:45 AM
Accurate Quarterly Inventory Turn Numbers rguldbrandsen Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 3 31st July 2013 07:39 AM
Accurate Measure of Field Performance optomist1 Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2 1st August 2011 03:20 PM
Accurate Method of Internal Radius Check Titanium67 Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 18 6th May 2010 07:50 PM
What does 99.9% success look like if processes were 99.9% accurate? SteelMaiden Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 19 5th December 2006 04:17 PM



The time now is 05:07 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 
 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"