The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Statistical Techniques and 6 Sigma
  AQL vs LTPD

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   AQL vs LTPD
Lyndon Diong
Forum Contributor

Posts: 21
From:Ipoh, Parak, Malaysia
Registered:

posted 28 September 1998 11:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lyndon Diong   Click Here to Email Lyndon Diong     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I favour LTPD rather than AQL. But some people disagree. Could someone let me know the practical advantage of AQL?

Thanks
Lyndon

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't technically know the difference. They're both assuming acceptance of bad product, right?

AQL is Acceptable Quality Level, right? I can use the tables and understand the statistical basis.

Is LTPD Lot Tolerance Percent Defective?

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09-29-98).]

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 01:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lyndon,

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) is the maximum percent defective that is considered satisfactory as a process average by the producer and consumer. In other words, if, on average, 4% (AQL=4.0) nonconforming product is acceptable to BOTH the producer and consumer, then the producer agrees to produce, on average, 4% nonconforming product.

Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD), expressed in percent defective, is the poorest quality in an individual lot that should be accepted. The LTPD has a low probability of acceptance. In many sampling plans, the LTPD is the percent defective having a 10% probability of acceptance using an accepted sampling plan. With this plan, the producer agrees to produce just enough nonconforming product such the consumer will accept the lot using the agreed to sampling plan and AQL level.

The primary difference is AQL is the average quality level over a series of lots where LTPD is lot-to-lot based. My suggestion: If you a producing a series of lots, use AQL to produce the nonconforming product. If you are producing single isolated lots of product, use LTPD to produce the nonconforming product.

Best Regards,
Don

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 01:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don,

Now that I know you're a statistician, I know who to direct e-mail to!

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Not statistician. Not sure I would like to wear that hat. However, I was a practicing quality engineer before I started this ISO stuff and like to keep those skills sharp. Feel free to direct any e-mail my direction at your discretion. I will try to help.

Best Regards,

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 09:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah - I was trying to remember back some years from when I worked as a QE. I dealt with AQL's but not LTPD. For over 10 years I have been operating in the PPM mind set. In my mind the difference was semantics as both were part of scheme where an agreement on a certain number of defectives seemed silly.

In retrospect, I can see more of a reality now that I'm 48. 20 to 30 years ago processes and technology (including information gathering / analysis technology) were nowhere near what they are today. Expectations have grown with technology. Look at cars today. Even 10 years ago this was evident.

Today we use poke-yoke and such to ensure no bad parts are shipped. Inspections are typically built in-line and are unobtrusive. Making bad parts are part of reality. All theory asides, you have to have some threshold. "Today's" measureable is PPM.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 09:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is from a user group message base:

-------snippo------

Whenever people speak of Acceptable Quality Level (AQL‚s) and Lot Tolerance Percent Defective (LTPD‚s) and anything else regarding sampling, I am reminded of the following. This is reprinted from Roger Slater‚s book „Integrated Process Managementš published by McGraw Hill (I would suggest this book to anyone that is involved in quality management). Used without permission.

On August 13, 1865, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis died∑a victim of learned ignorance. Official records of the time listed the cause of death as puerperal infection; a disease Semmelweis spent most of his life fighting. But the real culprits were medical colleagues, so entrenched and contemptuous in their resistance to his methods that, after 18 years of fighting conventional wisdom and professional ridicule, Semmelweis suffered a complete mental collapse. Some say his death was suicide, brought on by a self-inflicted surgical wound, which he plunged into the abdominal cavity of a cadaver, just succumbed to childbed fever.

Dr. Semmelweis suffered the fate of those who try to change things. Although he persevered longer than most and paid a more ultimate price, Semmelweis came to know the same hostility and rejection that have come to others, before and since, who challenge prevailing wisdom and dare to show that things might be done differently and better.

In 1848-at roughly the same time as Louis Pasteur was busy establishing the validity of his „germš theory of disease in Paris and Joseph Lister was developing antiseptic procedures in London; Semmelweis was working in Vienna on asepsis as a preventative of childbed fever. In those days, throughout Europe, of every 100 women who came to an obstetric clinic to have their babies, 25 to 30 would not leave there alive. They could be expected to contract and die of puerperal infection. Most authorities were convinced that the disease was not preventable, induced by overcrowding, poor ventilation, the onset of lactation, or „miasma.š Semmelweis not only disagreed; he was blasphemous enough to suggest that physicians themselves carried the infection.

In his earliest test of this idea, he had medical students wash their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime before examining patients. Mortality rates fell immediately in his division from 10 per 100 mothers to 1 per 100. His message was simple: if doctors would but wash their hands before examining patients, infection could be minimized and lives could be saved. Semmelweis was dismissed from the clinic a year later.

What Semmelweis overlooked in his attempt to convince others of the simple expediency of clean hands was the symbolism of the time. Physicians did not want to use a chlorine hand wash because it robbed them of an important sign of status. An accepted practice among physicians in those days was simply to wipe one‚s surgical smock after treating a patient. The often-smeared surgical smock came to be a visible sign of one‚s professional importance. Doctors were not about to give up so handy an index of personal worth just because some crackpot had data to show that they could save lives by washing their hands. They consciously and clearly decided to ignore-indeed, reject-factual information in order to protect and retain intact a personally cherished practice. They chose to be ignorant.

What can be learned from Semmelweis‚ experience? First, we can learn that intentional ignorance can be a problem, even among the brightest of people. And, secondly, we can perhaps learn something about management for, like those 19th century physicians, many modern managers are responsible for the spread of problems in their organizations. Managers, too, practice learned ignorance.

We are faced with a paradox. We usually equate ignorance with a lack of knowledge, with too few opportunities to learn and broaden our repertoires. But, as we have seen, ignorance itself may be learned when remaining ignorant suits our personal purposes.

Why is it that people refuse to accept the obvious. It always amazes me when people use AQL and LTPD as an acceptable method (excuse?) to produce nonconforming product. By definition, AQL suggests that a certain percentage of produced product can be nonconforming, and THAT IS ACCEPTABLE! Granted, this AQL is usually agreed to between the customer and producer, but to what end. Is the consumer then producing an upper level product using an AQL from vendors to pass this level of quality to its customers. How absurd!

This is what happens when producers forget what the „Pš in SPC stands for. Under the assumption that a process is operating at a capability of 4% (AQL=4.0) nonconforming, then it is accepted that 4%, on average, will be nonconforming. Would it not be more feasible to increase capability to a point where there are less than 10 PPM nonconforming and provide SPC data to verify this? Would this not decrease costs to both the producer and consumer? Would this not decrease the costs associated with sampling at all? The only sampling required would be the samples required for the SPC (or equivalent methodology) chart(s). The producer increases capability to produce more acceptable product, reducing its costs. The consumer reduces costs by reducing the number of complaints, returns, etc. Acceptance sampling is an antiquated practice that should be reviewed carefully before implementing. Do not be fooled by quick fixes and do not fall into the trap of „learned ignorance.š

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 29 September 1998 10:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It is nice that a QE (former or otherwise) is here and willing to discuss these things.

I concede that an agreement to „produce a certain number of defectives is silly.š Not only that, it is absurd and, IMHO, stupid (see post above). It seems a shame that sampling and AQL‚s are still a part of the ASQ‚s portion of the CQE certification process (which, among others, is why I did not choose to become certified. But that is another story).

AQL‚s are outdated. Process capability and PPM are the measure of the quality characteristics of today‚s standards.

IMHO, I have become disillusioned at the QE profession, in general (Altho, there are still a a lot of very good ones still out there). It seems that Deming, Juran and others are ignored in order to implement a Quality Management System that is „easy.š

„Do It Easy, But Do It My Way.š Anon.

„How Difficult It Is to Save the Bark of Reputation From the Rocks of Ignorance.š Fransesco Petrarch

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the host.

Best Regards,

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 30 September 1998 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well..well..a bit of a philosophiocal offering today, eh?

I like that hand washing story....I'll adopt it in my training...I always like to add a bit of story telling to bring home a point

IP: Logged

Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 30 September 1998 08:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Having worked with Ed Schilling a number of years at GE (he wrote a book on Acceptance Sampling), I'm not so convinced that A.S. should be a favorite whipping post. Dr. Schilling favored using AQL's as a benchmark of a process that should be re-negotiated periodically, much in the same vein that we re-negotiate Cpk's. In fact, some processes are more aligned with AQL-style sampling and I think that, in this case, Dr. Schilling's idea is a good one. Why not agree to an AQL of 3.0% and in a year, re-negotiate the AQL down to 2.0% (based on process improvements,etc.)? I don't think that sampling plans are the right target. I think that being satisfied with the level (Cpk, AQL, etc.) we are at presently is the real target. I know Deming liked to whip the AQL subject, but I think it was because managers were satisfied with 4.0% defective! Can we not do the same thing with any other indicator? Personally, I get discontent with quality management whenever we as a group become satisfied at a certain level of quality - whether that is attaining a Cpk, attainging an AQL or compliance with ISO/QS9000.

IP: Logged

Don Winton
Forum Contributor

Posts: 498
From:Tullahoma, TN
Registered:

posted 30 September 1998 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Winton   Click Here to Email Don Winton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yea, I do tend to ramble sometimes. Especially after a full day in meetings with those whose vision, to put politely, is myopic. I have GOT to learn to calm down before moving on to other topics when this happens. But anyway, it was late and I was tired.

I did not mean to imply that AS was an unacceptable method of operation, only that those who use it to "justify" producing a level of nonconforming product were shortsighted. The idea of a renegotiated AQL is, I agree, a good one, but only if applied. The phrase "but, it has always been this way" is another way of saying, "we do not want to change."

The following is a true story from my (shaded?) past.

The company in question (name withheld) produced a semiconductor component from raw material (wafers) supplied from different vendors. The raw material was supplied with chemical composition sheets that provided the basis as to which wafer would be applied to which product line. The fabrication engineer would examine the data sheets and select the wafer(s) he felt was right for the job that was to be processed into the components. After fabrication, each component was tested prior to being processed into the final package. At this in-process stage, there would be 40% to 50% of the components that would not function as expected in the final form. These would be put aside with the standard disclaimer "well someone may be able to use them sometime." When I was first asked to investigate, there were over 7500 of these "leftovers" that had collected (that I was told about). Many more had been discarded over the years. I asked the QM the obvious question, "How can you continue to function with this amount of failures?" The answer was (of course) "It has always been this way. It cannot get any better." After collection and examination of the raw data supplied by the vendor and the results of the in-process testing, I found a direct relationship (correlation by multiple regression with r=0.87) between the vendor's data and the in-process test results. Using the regression techniques, I developed an equation that could be used to purchase the raw material on the basis of the parameters expected of the final product. Using this equation, I selected several available wafers for a trial run. This trial run yielded approximately 85% acceptable (obviously I had not found the only source of variation, just an apparent one). After implementing the equation in the selection process, computer simulations indicated the company in question would save over $550,000 per year. The General Manager and QM were pleased with my results and final report, but obviously never implemented this system or try to find the additional sources of variation (There were a LOT. My preliminary count yielded over 20 key input variables). The company no longer exists and 58 souls became unemployed.

The idea of continuous improvement is just that, continuous. Renegotiated AQL's are a way, just as continued monitoring and improvement of Cpk (or whatever) is. I also become discontent (to put it politely) when someone becomes "satisfied with a certain level of quality." When dealing with these types and the myopic ones mentioned above, I find the following helpful:

"The trouble with people is not that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so." Josh Billings

barb, I have the book mentioned above. It is an excellent read. There is also a lot on the web about learned ignorance and Dr. Semmelweis if you need additional info.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!