Fat-free. No-lead. Free-range. Zero defects is a negotiated value dependent on how "zero" is defined, a compromise. Instead of a compromise, know what you want - your target value - and continually seek to achieve it.
I absolutely love the visual representation of the coffee model. It's relatable and pushes through the concept of zero-defects. It's easy to miss the fact that a process is gradually widening it's tolerance rather than tightening it. I think that's how you get companies that excel with their product so 'easily' while others flounder wondering what they're doing wrong. And so many companies don't listen to their customer base, when this should be of utmost importance to them because if they can tweak their process to meet their customer's needs, it would save them money, time and other resources, AND would make a much happier customer base.
This is really changes my perception about how to view quality. And it makes so much sense when you try to hit a target goal with minimal variation versus being in/out of specifications. I think the biggest component of added value is the data that you can feed back to improve, and running your operation more efficiently knowing you can repeatedly hit deadlines.
I really liked the point about not just focusing on Zero Defects. We can also aim for an optimal target in order to continually improve. Too often we do focus on not doing something wrong instead of focusing on improving something we've already done right.
Redefining zero defect as continuously eliminating the variation from the target value. For our operations, a machining target value would be the nominal dimension for each feature being produced. We often find that a lot of our defects could be avoided if we could consistently meet that target value.
This video really captures the essence of a problematic theme in many companies; everything is fine while there are zero defects, but when something goes wrong, everyone loses their minds! The coffee example accurately captures the loss of perspective about trends in data. Good video, these lessons can be applied nearly everywhere.
This is a great example of perfection not necessarily being possible or can be too time consuming and costly to be achieved. Widening the parameters of success makes the gauge too large and will ultimately lead to unsatisfactory results. Thanks for uploading.
I like how you explain how Lean Six Sigma drives you to produce a more consistent outcome by setting specific goals instead of being content with completing within the range.
This made me think of my role working with rental tuxedos. The phrase "they have to remember it's just a rental suit" was thrown around a lot in the DC, but the customers never cared - they still wanted high quality for what they were paying. I don't think it's a coincidence that we used that phrase as our operation got tighter over the years.
I fall victim of the "well it is in spec" mindset from time to time. This does a great job showing you how taking the step to operating to the target can help control variation and have a lasting positive impact
There is always room to make what you are working on better- to improve. I like how you used something a simple as coffee to demonstrate this as it makes it easier to understand. Keep improving to get to a zero defect.
This shows you that quality doesn't end with meeting expectations. Exceeding expectations sets you up for success in the future when the competition gets tougher.
This video made it clear that instead of setting a range, choose a target. This will lead to fewer defects. This improves quality too, improving on the front end processes in stead of fixing problems at the end.
The connection between customer and defects is much greater than I originally thought. To be in tune with customer voice and expectation is critical, especially in an ever changing customer culture and opinion. I think the key is company research and customer feedback programs. If we can't measure our customer expectations we will not have the accurate scope of what is defective and what is quality.
This is a very interesting concept not just working to be within an acceptable range where you have some variation but really striving for the perfect target and calculating it by number on target instead of zero defects.
This forces one to always think of better ways to work, with concepts like this, your brain is involuntarily forced to operate beyond average, which results in your mind constantly digging for better ideas. it is like food for the brain. Definitely headed to part 2 of the video.
The definition of specs was a pretty good definition. This takes into account customer satisfaction, the cost and the complexity. Perfection does not matter if customer satisfaction is not met, or if it is too costly to keep these standards.
This is a great, simplified explanation of what lean and six sigma is as well as what it looks like. Without specific targets, focus and innovation can be lost and the work, due to the nature of ranges (upper and lower limits), becomes about being "acceptable" or "good enough". It doesn't drive towards excellence. In my professional experience, aiming for "good enough" is about tweaking increasingly obsolete processes to stay within limits while targets create new processes through innovation and creativity.
Interesting to realize how setting correct parameters/goals is so relevant. Also, I enjoyed realizing that quality should not be good or bad but something to be improved on the long run!
This video/lecture explains clearly the reason why every business or establishment needs to consistently reexamine their operations even when they are profitable, to find ways of bettering their processes to increase their bottom line by continuously reducing variations.
The coffee example was helpful in illustrating how maintaining zero defects was not enough but should look at continuous improvements to help minimize variation
Good input, Mitch. I remember in the movie "Robin Hood", Kevin Locklsey said "aim small, miss small". This video reminds me of that. There is value in setting a range initially (I would imagine) considering their are milestones as you begin to improve, but a set target helps us identify additional special causes that may not be identified with a wide range.
This video makes me think twice about defects and what is considered "99.99% effective" because if you keep moving the target, your results can say anything you want them to.
It is surprising how many people and companies still have the initial view of "0 Defects". They just get there and say, yeah, we're good! I agree with the video in that looking for the target with minimal variation is a much better way to go.
I really enjoyed this video! The continual pursuit of perfection, improvements and setting a target seems similar to a concept I like to use in my professional and personal life (strive to be proactive with thoughtful improvements versus reactive to bad results).
In the coffee example, to get all the data points into tolerance, the boundaries was extended. This is a great example of manipulating data and selling customers wrong information. When it comes to quality it is important to be precise and consistent with your data
It reminds me of "Goal Zero" Safety, you always want to prevent safety incidents, and you must always strive to remove any unsafe actions, not just change definitions to adjust safety.
I see this a lot in sales adds on zero defects and it makes sense that if there is a broad range of tolerance the less defects you have but if you include the target value all the defect numbers look much higher.
This reminds me of customer specifications, where we have a range that the spec can be in but we should focus more on hitting the middle of the spec to avoid material being out of specification to increase the on target rate
Compelling argument/notion about aiming for an actual target, with minimal variation, when seeking to improve a process. Much more effective than have a simple binary outcome of acceptable vs not acceptable. I also appreciated the clarification at the beginning of this presentation (although this should be well drilled by now) that Lean seeks to achieve "zero" waste while Six Sigma seeks to achieve "zero" defects.
Adam, the statement of what each Lean and Six Sigma seek to achieve is meant to clarify their main focus and approach, but it is not a limiting statement. That is, Toyota (Lean) also seeks to reduce variation to produce perfect product, and it also applies statistical process control with great results. Recall an earlier motto of the Lexus brand: "the relentless pursuit of perfection."
This concept focuses on maintaining efficiency yet maintaining the best quality possible that is promised to the customer/consumer. I enjoyed Francisco's coffee example as well. Makes me think of the reason why Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's☕ Coffee was too HOT🔥
I agree that certain goals should be set. In machining, we need to aim for the print dimension, we are given an acceptable tolerance (high/low, max/min) but if we machine always on the edges of the tolerance, we can experience rejects.
I think it is important to understand that in certain businesses customer preferences can change. In the coffee example, what would your on-target number look like if customers' preferences changed to reflect and optimal temperature of 140F? It is important to continually get feedback from your customer base in order to keep your target aligned to the customer.
Great experiment overall and can see how this is a great way to teach lessons on how not to run a business. I would like to believe that this has been well received by previous management teams, as it brings to light the potential obstacles to a continuous improvement environment by not allowing the creativity of the employees to find better ways to achieve a different outcome.
So many companies and people view quality as a measure of good or bad but fail to include the variations. Decreasing the variation will equal superior results. This way the focus on the correct target and includes the right changes.
Interesting way to look at things when you are looking at the limits and what is good and isn't and how if we look at it at from the limits side things can become binary. By looking at quality with definitive means, it doesn't allow for complacency when things are good.
Lean Six Sigma is about continuous improvement towards a goal - not away from a defect. The process, operation, and business will all perform better with this approach to quality.
Good illustration that "zero defects" means within pre-defined specs so drawback is that "zero defects" doesn't control for variability. Controlling and reducing variability is part of important and part of continuous improvement. Better to combine specs with the concept of Target and also measure % of time you actually achieve the Target. Thanks!
The coffee model translates fairly well to my industry (laboratory) where the integrity of client samples are governed by quality control measures. A laboratory control sample (LCS) will have upper and lower control limits that the result must fall between in order for the associated client sample (product) to be reported. If the LCS is out of control, this indicates there is a problem with the system, or process. Depending on the situation, the result will either be qualified and reported or re-analyzed after investigating the root cause of the failure. Re-analysis means reprocessing, which means time-loss. Redoing an entire analytical process has two main negative outcomes - loss of efficiency and in some cases failure to meet a client deadline. We track the number of these types of failures monthly as performance indicators, but we also take preventative actions to search for trends within the control limits. For example, we'll open an Out Of Control investigation if we have five sequential ascending or descending points while still within the upper and lower control limits. I'm looking forward to diving further into this from an operations perspective.
I thought using an everyday example like coffee was a good way to put it in perspective. My initial thought was why a large range of 20 degrees would even be considered acceptable, so I like that the discussion was later tightened up by defining a target vs. an acceptable level of tolerance.
I appreciate the insight to focus on the issues surrounding linearity. How else would we know what is approaching out of spec unless we have a benchmark between our spec limits? Great insight.
Sometimes design engineers will attach "boiler plate" tolerances to their designs that end up being far too tight for the specific occasion and a discussion about widening the limits has worked and saved lots of time and money.
From the video, I learned the process has to be monitored & adjusted in order to have a clear look at whether a company is producing at the expected level. This can be obscured when there is a binary point of view, as indicated in the video when measuring the quality of coffee. If the company only views quality based upon zero defects what happens if there is a new indicator /target, this may expose problems to late.
This really makes me think about how people use tolerances at work especially with small quantity develop jobs. It’s easy to make a 50 piece develop “good” or “in tolerance” but when the 100,000 piece order comes down for the same part it’s nothing but problems.
Agree with having a target instead of a range and having a margin of error or accuracy goal instead of pursuing perfection and losing sight of other things along the way.
Thank you for showing that just because the product doesn't have any defects, you can't just look at it as defect free, but what is the improvement? The benefits? Concentrating only on the defects prevents you from concentrating on what's right.
Achieving zero defects is a relentless pursuit of perfection in order to improve quality. Through this constant pursuit, we can push quality and improvements to a higher level
Creating a target value identifies where the perfect coffee temperature would be. It also starts the conversation on how we can control this temperature in a better way to create a more consistent result for the customer.
Hi Adam, yes, having a target, something to shoot for, starts a constructive discussion about how to get and stay on target. This is the first step toward sustaining any improvement.
It becomes very crucial to monitor variation and defects when you get to the food industry or other industries that depend on human consumption and human use on themselves. This very big and important reason is "recalls". If you do not set up a good monitoring and inspection system in your processes, you can mess up the "recipe" of your product by not adding the proper amount of components or having foreign objects get in to the mix. Recalls are extremely costly for the company, which could lead to an enormous amount of waste of product, which comes from recalling it, the investigation that needs to happen to find where specifically the deviation happened, and any possible lawsuits that could spring up after the fact.
Some manufacturing companies customer's specifications as process control specifications rather than establish in process specification based on specific targets that minimize variability
Everything that is manufactured is built to spec, with a tolerance. In order to reach "zero defects", the easiest way to do so is to expand your tolerance so it covers all variability. While it looks good on paper to have no defects, it will come at the expense of the customer getting inconsistent product. The right way to do so is gather information from your customers to determine an acceptable tolerance for your product, and with good processes and management, work to keep everything within tolerance.
The idea of moving the goal posts when trying to operate within a range really hit home. There's specific example at work where a process improvement team did something like this and then considered the project a success. It was short sighted. They should have set a target rather than redefine what is acceptable.
take-aways... Lean = zero waste; 6-Sigma = zero defects ... aiming for middle of spec creates consistency, less chance to wobble into NC territory which leads to fewer defects, and thus improves the bottom line when it comes to zero waste.
Using in my role, it's hard to use. We get a finished product to package. Our ship method falls under this as we give fluff days to assure product get to the customer on time. The theory makes sense but I am still trying to figure out how it could work for me.
In the chemical processing industry this could mean less product re-work, decreased blending, and less work for production planning after product is already made
I think that there is also something else that we should consider. At the right costs... at the right risks... One may also discover that the target or goal is not sustainable and need to be reevaluated and/or the higher costs is worth it if the customer also finds value.
the main idea is how good is good enough? is it meeting the specs or is it having less than x number of customer complaints in a given month. in reality you want to continuously improve your process to provide the best quality with reasonable cost.
Spiky is always better! For example, the mechanical ventilators in the current situation are really important is not enough to have "Zero Defects", life depends on that, it has to deliver the right flows at the right time. At that point, we realized that the perspective of quality is not the same, change according to the industry.
Focusing on a central target instead of having zero defects seems like a great way to achieve precision and predictability. The focus is on control and not just hitting the board anywhere. Does this tie into SPC?
Yes, this ties into SPC, because SPC lets you to stabilize the process by identifying and systematically eliminating the causes of the special variation until you are left with just random noise. Once you have a stable system, then you can look at ways to make it better by controlling the causes of common variation. We do this with the fishbone and five why’s analysis. But remember that we must first stabilize the process before trying to improve it.
When you air for a target the goal is to hit the center "a bullseye", are you continually aiming for the center and hitting with minimal variation, or are you simply happy to hit the target?
You’re never going to hit the target always, because of multiple reasons called causes of common variation. The best that anybody can do is to aim for the target with minimal variation.
Karla. My response was going to be exactly the same as yours. When everyone is aiming to towards 0/minimal Defects, its is done through company standards and drive that must be pushed through the company values and goals, lined out and set to the standard across the board.
Joseph Tshulos It’s too bad that companies will set standards for defects, but then open the range of acceptance an exceptions to allow people to make there numbers.
