Talk:Statistical process control/Archives/2012

Copyedit

I have copy edited the page so that a person without any knowledge of the field will be able to see some internal logic within the syntax. I would humbly suggest that an expert in the field re-read the page to ensure all the accuracy of the concepts which are discussed has been retained. Ideally, it should read with inline citations - as well as increasing verifiability, this would help the reader with further references for further study. The terms cause and source seemed to be used interchangeably. for consistency, I used 'source' throughout for consistency. What an interesting page! Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don;t have time to look at this (or even to read _anything_ here). I would question the intro though as "the least possible waste" - the point about SPC is that it should (for a capable process in an appropriate process field) be possible to reduce this to zero waste. This is important, because it then removes the need for a whole step of post-manufacture inspection.

Obviously such a statement is problematic: WP hates absolutes. It's even difficult to do in commercial manufacturing - SPC fails a lot, and it usually (IMHE) fails because it has been applied well, by competent SPC specialists, to a manufacturing process that just isn't amenable to it. When SPC is applicable (and that's sometimes a hard judgement) then it doesn't deliver "few" defects it does indeed deliver zero defects. However failed SPC is usually because it was applied to a process that just wasn't amenable to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for your comment. I understand what you are saying. If its ok, I'll add that point to the article. Might need a reference added later. Cheers, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)