Mansour,
Measures such as 3.4 dpmo are meaningless and should never be used under
any
cir***stance. It is instructive to look at the history of this number:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=11905
It can be seen that Mikel Harry and his partner have attempted to prop up
this nonsense over the years, ranging from a number based on stacks of
disks, to an approximation that "is not needed", to the 2003 version, to
Reigle Stewart's version. The paper quoted shows how all forms are
incorrect.
It does provide an easy method for choosing consulting companies. If a
consultant talks about 3.4 dpmo, he/she is worthless.
Unfortunately 3.4dpmo is the foundation of six sigma and it is a
foundation
built on quicksand.
I'm happy to discuss further if you require.
Best regards,
Tony Burns. BE (Hon 1) PhD Chemical Engineering
> Di you have something different requirement than 3.4dpmo for six
> sigma?
>
> On May 11, 4:10 pm, "Tony" <a_bu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> This company (Quality America) is still pu****ng the old 3.4dpmo. Does
>> anyone still believe or use this rubbish ?
>>
>> "Mansour" <mansourtoloo_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1178892677.331733.31520@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > On May 10, 4:36 pm, Mansour <mansourtoloo_2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Hi:
>>
>> >> Has anybody used "The IQF Six Sigma Study Guide"? Thank you.
>>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Mansour
>>
>> > I mean the material mentioned in
>>
>> >http://www.qualityamerica.com/QPProducts/IQF6sigmastudyguide.htm
>
>
|
