People often hesitate to dive into their data to find the low-hanging fruit, but that’s where the biggest, juiciest fruit can be found. Haven’t you waited long enough to start solving million dollar problems?
Latest "Improvement Insights" Posts
How often have you heard someone say “It’s just human error” as if we can’t do anything about it? Nonsense! And here’s why:
Maybe you can’t get your CEO on board, but you don’t need top level commitment. You need to find the CEO of the problem!
Are Japanese words slowing your Lean Six Sigma implementation?
Do you ever feel like you’re fighting the headwinds of history when it comes to quality? I sure do. Here’s why.
Still practicing last century quality improvement? The economy has changed. Current trends demand an Agile approach to Six Sigma. Isn’t it time to embrace 21st Century Quality?
QI Macros exhibited at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) conference in Orlando this week. There were over 500 improvement posters. Like prior years, I used a checksheet to collect data about the tools used. Once again, the results are disappointing. Quality tools–control charts, Pareto charts, and Fishbone diagrams–are still a small percentage of tools used, unchanged since I started collecting data in 2015. Bar and line charts still dominate posters; I call them Dumb and Dumber charts.
The quest for Zero Harm using high-reliability methods and tools (i.e., Lean Six Sigma, control charts, Pareto charts, histograms, etc.) is gaining momentum.
Too many quality professionals are clinging to the way things have always been done. There’s some sort of taboo about doing things quickly and easily. What are the differences between 20th and 21st Century Quality? Watch and find out:
20th Century Quality needed big Six Sigma implementations because you had to learn things that aren’t necessary any more. Take a 21st Century, Agile approach to Six Sigma to start getting results immediately.
A QI Macros customer called to ask how he could figure out the specification limits to give him a Cp/Cpk of 1.33. What’s wrong with this question? The answer is obvious isn’t it?