Measurement Widgets

Our dependence on tools comes with a stiff price

Editor’s note: Umberto Tunesi is a new columnist for Quality Digest. He brings his auditing expertise to bear on a surprising range of subjects, and we’re happy to add his European perspective to our mix. “I realize I’m being tough on the ISO/TS 16949 and AIAG manual writers, as well on performance-monitoring criteria,” he tells us, “but I guess I wouldn’t be writing for QD if I weren’t such a nasty guy. For centuries, my family’s motto has been ‘Crazy but just.’ ” We think he’ll fit in pretty well around here.

Where I was born, in a town close to Milan, Italy, there’s a saying: “When you have no memory, you have no history” and vice-versa. If there’s something that measurement policies, systems, and devices don’t measure, it’s the capability of human memory.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Great Column

Great Column, Umberto! I have seen most of these problems at many organizations. I agree that it's foolish to consider Cpk without also considering Cp. It's doubly foolish (and shows a complete lack of understanding) to insist on some level of Cp/Cpk and also insist on 100% inspection. I've long felt that a customer should insist that each lot of incoming parts should contain a control chart for the run that produced that lot, and the capability study. THEN I would know what I have...no acceptance testing or further inspection should be necessary. That, of course, would require working with the suppliers. This is what Deming talked about 30 years ago...most manufacturers got part of that lesson, but missed the profound knowledge that would let them truly understand it.