As I lied once before on these pages, I tend to avoid getting political in these columns with the exception of the occasional cheap generic shot. But since this is the first column of the new year, it’s that time again when the past year is reviewed and the number crunching begins. 

I recently attended a lecture by an industrial statistician. Part of the lecture included a summary of Dorian Shainin’s body of work. I had to smile as the lecturer spoke about Shainin’s “exaggerated claims” of the results attributed to his methods and his infamous “pre-control.” 

Don’t bite off more than you can chew, and really understand the methodology before attempting a large Six Sigma project. Those are the first words of advice for a Six Sigma novice from Six Sigma Master Black Belt John Vandenbemden.

Throughout years of mentoring and teaching aspiring quality professionals, I still review the Shainin techniques.

Manufacturing professionals in quality assurance and process improvement are not new to understanding the importance of quality. However, do they know the difference to be made in creating a culture of quality with regards to driving the policies, practices, and processes needed to accomplish an organization’s work?

Albert Einstein is widely credited as having defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” 

Cost of quality is often misunderstood, improperly measured, and underutilized.

In automotive manufacturing, reducing quality costs can be like trying to bail out a leaking boat. You can empty bucket after bucket over the side, but you can’t get above water until you plug the leaks themselves.

It did not happen quickly but advocates of Six Sigma and lean methodologies have worked together to achieve a partnership of both approaches.

In my two previous columns I discussed specification limits and process control limits, which led to thoughts about product disposition limits.