data science

Dec 25 2019

Your Lean Six Sigma Belt Program Is the Problem | Dan Markovitz | Industry Week

“I visited a company a few weeks ago that asks all of their employees to do a green belt project. It’s not mandatory, but completion of a project is part of their annual review. Not surprisingly, the management boasts that nearly everyone does a project. You know how many people do a second project? Less than 5%. This company is doing okay, but they definitely don’t have a culture of continuous improvement.”

Source: Industry Week

Michel Baudin‘s comments: Dan’s article is spot on, except in his assessment of statistical tools. Depending on the company’s situation, none of the ones he lists may be needed. Other tools, like SMED, cell design, mistake-proofing or JKK may be more relevant. Data science is needed in semiconductors and pharmaceuticals but the statistical tools Dan describes as “advanced” are not. ANOVA, regression, and t-tests go back 100 years; Design Of Experiments (DOE), a good 50. As for Ishikawa’s “7 tools of QC” from the 1960s,  I have never seen them used as advertised anywhere. They are sorely in need of an update in every respect, from data acquisition to analysis and presentation.

#leansixsigma, #blackbelts, #datascience,#7toolsofqc

By • Press clippings • 2 • Tags: , , , ,

QCtrackingToyota1950sArtOfLean2

Jul 16 2019

Updating the 7 tools of QC

A conversation with Franck Vermet about problem-solving tools for factory operators caused me to revisit the 7 tools of QC from 50 years ago and ponder how they should be updated with current data science.

Data Science for Operators, as a book, remains to be written. If you google this phrase today, what comes up is training courses offering to “change your career” by attending a “data science bootcamp.” TIBCO Spotfire has “Workflow Operators” but these are programs, not people.

So the following are tentative answers to questions that haven’t been asked before.

Continue reading…

By • Data science • 4 • Tags: , , , , , ,

DeustoLectureFeature

Jun 20 2019

The Use of Data to Improve Manufacturing | Luis Mauleón | Empresa XXI

Luis Mauleón

This is the translation of article recently published by Asenta’s Partner-Director Luis Mauleón in Empresa XXI, summarizing the key points of my lecture last month at the Faculty of Engineering of Deusto University in Bilbao, as part of a series of events organized by Asenta Management Consultants.

Practical lessons from Michel Baudin

In an environment with an overabundance of data, it is a paradox that we still have difficulties to finding simple answers to simple questions.

Continue reading…

By • Press clippings • 1 • Tags: , , , ,

Jun 2 2018

Data Mining/Machine-Learning Tools In Manufacturing

This elaborates on the section on Analyzing The Data of the previous post. For a list of tools used for  “data mining” or “machine-learning,” I researched, for each one, who invented it, when it was invented, for what purpose, and what applications it has had in manufacturing, and summarized my findings in the table below.

I am, however, not satisfied with the level of applications I found and would like to crowdsource more. If you have made these or other tools useful in your own manufacturing environment, please share whatever information you can about your applications in the survey that follows.

Continue reading…

By • Data science • 1 • Tags: , , ,

May 23 2018

Using Data Science To Improve Manufacturing

If you google “data-science + manufacturing,” what comes back is recycled hype about the factory of the future. The same vision has been painted before and hasn’t come to pass, yet we are expected to believe that it will this time and that it will be a “4th industrial revolution.” Whether it’s true or not, this happy talk is no help in today’s factories. “Data science” covers real advances in the art of working with data, and the more relevant question is what it can do to improve existing operations.

Continue reading…

By • Data science • 5 • Tags: , , , , ,

Dec 10 2017

Is SPC Obsolete? (Revisited)

Six years ago, one of the first posts in this blog — Is SPC Obsolete? — started a spirited discussion with 122 comments. Reflecting on it, however, I find that the participants, including myself, missed the mark in many ways:

  1. My own post and comments were too long on what is wrong with SPC, as taught to this day, and too short on alternatives. Here, I am attempting to remedy this by presenting two techniques, induction trees and naive Bayes, that I think should be taught as part of anything reasonably called statistical process control. I conclude with what I think are the cultural reasons why they are ignored.
  2. The discussions were too narrowly focused on control charts. While the Wikipedia article on SPC is only about control charts, other authors, like Douglas Montgomery or Jack B. Revelle, see it as including other tools, such scatterplots, Pareto charts, and histograms, topics that none of the discussion participants said anything about. Even among control charts, there was undue emphasis on just one kind, the XmR chart, that Don Wheeler thinks is all you need to understand variation.
  3. Many of the contributors resorted to the argument of authority, saying that an approach must be right because of who said so, as opposed to what it says. With all due respect to Shewhart, Deming, and Juran, we are not going to solve today’s quality problems by parsing their words. If they were still around, perhaps they would chime in and exhort quality professionals to apply their own judgment instead.

Continue reading…

By • Data science • 2 • Tags: , , ,

1 2 3
%d bloggers like this: