首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Quality Technology >Is Your Process Being Adjusted Too Frequently?
【24h】

Is Your Process Being Adjusted Too Frequently?

机译:您的流程调整得太频繁了吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

My consulting experience with manufacturing/engineering groups has revealed that virtually all of them have one or more hand-operated processes with someone in charge of keeping the process "on target." This has invariably led to over-adjusting, because: a) most of the time there is no control chart in place to guide them; and b) the operators (engineers or technicians) in charge of monitoring the processes inherently feel that, unless they are continually adjusting the processes, they are not doing the job they are paid to do. To be specific, let us suppose that a process output is designed to be 100. An operator measures the output and finds it to be 97. The process is adjusted by increasing its output by 3 units to correct the deficiency. This procedure is carried out from time to time. (It is related to "rule 2" of the "funnel experiment" described by Deming (1986, p. 327)). It is "obviously" a sensible approach. Unfortunately, as we shall see, it is often not a sensible approach at all (see MacGregor (1990) for situations in continuous process industries where frequent adjustment may be called for).
机译:我在制造/工程团队的咨询经验表明,几乎所有的团队都有一个或多个手动操作的流程,并且有人负责使流程“保持在目标位置”。这总是导致过度调整,因为:a)在大多数情况下,没有适当的控制图来指导他们; b)负责监视过程的操作员(工程师或技术人员)固有地认为,除非他们不断调整过程,否则他们不会完成应得的工作。具体地说,让我们假设一个过程输出被设计为100。操作员测量该输出并发现它为97。通过将其输出增加3个单位来调整该过程以纠正缺陷。此过程不时执行。 (这与Deming(1986,p。327)描述的“漏斗实验”的“规则2”有关)。这“显然”是一种明智的做法。不幸的是,正如我们将要看到的那样,它通常根本不是明智的方法(对于连续过程工业中需要频繁调整的情况,请参见MacGregor(1990))。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号