IOTA Course Material v3.2

BENCHMARK SIX SIGMA
BLACK BELT PROGRAM

IOTA MODULE
METRICS & MEASURES AND THEIR USEFULNESS
© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 1

About Benchmark Six Sigma
Founded in 2001, Benchmark Six Sigma leads the Business Problem Solving Workshops in India.
Benchmark utilizes a wide variety of management techniques that have evolved over centuries to help
client organizations and professionals address challenges and chart extra-ordinary growth paths.
Benchmark workshops have evolved as Industry best offerings in two formats. In the public workshops
format, we offer globally recognized programs with content and methodology that can be used in
practically any domain. In the customized in-company workshops format, Benchmark is known for its
ability to design and deliver highly valuable programs with demonstrated applicability. Our in-company
workshops are offered with or without consulting support.

The four unique elements in BSBI
➢ Champions (Top Management)
collaborates in business improvement Benchmark System Of
project selection.
➢ Integration of 17 competencies to create
Business Improvement
methodology with right toolkit.
➢ Proprietary engaging sequences that make
the methodology work.
➢ Action Learning Workshops.
Action
Learning
Custom Workshops till
sequences for the end
Creation of the custom
methodology
4
methodology
Selection of for your
projects
3
business
impacting
projects
2
1
BSS across the world
USA
Indonesia Netherlands Oman
Italy
Hungary Germany
Madrid

Benchmark Six Sigma* is Exemplar Global certified
RAB ASQ Exemplar

QSA RABQSA Global
Jan, 1989, Jan, 2005 Oct, 2013
RAB: Registrar Accreditation Board, USA

QSA: Quality Society of Australasia, Australia
ASQ: American Society for Quality USA
RABQSA changed its name to Exemplar Global in 2013. It has offices in
the USA, Australia, Korea, Brazil, Cyprus, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand,
Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey, China and Vietnam. Exemplar has
associations with international bodies including ASQ, AACB, AAQG,
ACHMM, IAAR. It has an association with QCI in India.

Our Clients – Part List

Press Release from RABQSA

Course Announcements
➢ 100% attendance is expected in all sessions of training
➢ Please log in to Zoom meeting links at least 10 minutes in advance and ensure that
your audio is working fine
➢ Please keep yourself on mute on all times. You may use the chat window to ask
questions
➢ Please avoid use of laptops/mobile for office work during the sessions as such acts
cause distraction
➢ It is advisable, to attend the online sessions in an area that is free from distractions
and noise. This will help you maximize the learning from the sessions
➢ Course Material comprises of soft copies of Course Books
➢ Academy contains Minitab data files (for class exercises), case studies, some useful
templates, reference material and pre-course reading material.
➢ Minitab software will be used for all graphical and statistical exercises. Individual
laptops are required for all days of the training course
➢ Trainer notes are not available in soft copy. Please take notes as required

Data Types
Attribute/Discrete Continuous
Categoric ➢ Dimensions
➢ Colors ➢ Profit
➢ Gender ➢ Sales Revenue
➢ Region ➢ Handle Time
➢ Satisfaction Scale ➢ Lead Time
Count ➢ Turn Around Time
➢ No. of tickets ➢ Weight
➢ No. of defects ➢ Temperature
➢ No. of clicks
➢ No. of items sold

Performance Data vs. Cause Data
Cause Data (x’s) Performance Data (Y or y’s)
Input Process Output
Y = f(x)
Performance Data Cause Data

•Descriptive •Focuses on why process performs the
•Focus on Results way it does
•Helps establish a baseline •Helps identify potential root causes
•Measures performance of a process •Collect this type of data to explain
•Should be collected first performance problems

Performance Standard Matrix
➢ For the primary metric, project Y, we define how we measure

the characteristic, what is the definition of the defect and
where the data is obtained from.
Item Continuous Data Example Discrete Data Example
Item Car Invoice
Metric Length in feet from the left Number of errors per invoice
door to right door handle.
Opportunity 1 / unit 15 / invoice
Data Type Continuous Discrete – Defect
Target 4.2 feet – as specified by Zero
R&D
Specifications +/- 0.1 feet Less than 1 error / invoice
Measurement Source Laser Check Visual Inspection
Measurement Frequency Once/week Once/month

Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Sections
Iota, Ι Zeta, Z Epsilon, Ε Theta, Θ Omega Ω

Iota denotes a Small “Born Last”, It is the The maximum error Angular Position, Omega is the symbol
difference sixth letter that can occur Temperature of last, best, or final
Metrics and
Process Stability Hypothesis Testing Experimentation
Big Y to small y to
measurements root cause
Measurement System Hypotheses and

Analysis
Process Capability
Comparisons
Design of Experiments Review of DMAIC

Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Modules
Iota, Ι Zeta, Z Epsilon, Ε Theta, Θ Omega Ω

Iota denotes a Small “Born Last”, It is the The maximum error Angular Position, Omega is the symbol
difference sixth letter that can occur Temperature of last, best, or final
Metrics and
Process Stability Hypothesis Testing Experimentation
Big Y to small y to
measurements root cause
Measurement System Hypotheses and

Analysis
Process Capability
Comparisons
Design of Experiments Review of DMAIC

IOTA – Overview
Introduction to Logical MSA Discrete

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
Performance Performance
data
Discrete Data Continuous Data
Probability
Calculations

Measurement System Analysis (MSA)
What is the first question you ask when you are about to run an
analysis?
Answer: "Can I trust my data?" If the answer to that question is "No"
or even "I'm not sure" it's usually pointless to go any further: Why
would you spend any valuable time to interpret data you can't rely
on?
That's where measurement systems analysis, or MSA, comes in.
MSA is a collection of methods you can

use to assess your ability to
collect trustworthy, reliable data - the
kind of data you want to Analyze.

Measurement System for Y
Measurement system analysis is carried out to determine the reliability of the
current measurement system, and assists us in ascertaining whether we can
trust the collected data
Measurement System Type of data MSA
Continuous or
All types Logical validation
Discrete
Nominal-Binary
(Discrete) Attribute agreement analysis
Operator/Appraiser only
[e.g. Pass/Fail, (Fleiss Kappa statistic)
Go/No-Go]
Ordinal (Discrete) Attribute agreement analysis

Operator/Appraiser only
[e.g. Rating 1 to 5] (Kendall’s coefficient)
Measurement Resolution, Accuracy, Gage R&R

Operator + Gauge
(Continuous) (Precision)

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

Logical Validation
When the metric chosen is such that conducting an MSA is not possible or
practical, then at the least a Logical Validation should be done to ensure
data is reliable and accurate.
Logical validation can be done by checking the boundary conditions - do the

start and stop points accurately reflect what we expect for the project?
Copier Repair Time
Start Point Stop Point

Is the time started when the copier is really broken?
What if the time is recorded at the end of the day?
Is time recorded in system when copier person is there to fix?
Is the time stopped when the copier is really fixed?

What if the time is recorded at the end of the day?
What is the time recorded even if the copier is not fully fixed, just because repair person showed up?

Logical Validation Example
➢ A project is selected to reduce the inventory of finished goods to less than

one day.
➢ Metric: Number of finished goods stored in a month for more than one
day/ Number of goods produced.
➢ Data is Discrete type. The daily production and dispatch happens through
system and the data is entered in SAP.
➢ In order to validate the data, Daily dispatches and daily production in SAP
can be verified with the physical movement and the actual production,
respectively.

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

MSA for Discrete Data
What is an Attribute Measurement System?
Attribute measurement systems are the class of measurement systems where the measurement
value is one of a finite number of categories. The most common of these is a go/no-go gage which
has only two possible results. Other attribute systems, for example visual standards, may result in
five to seven classifications, such as very good, good, fair, poor, very poor.
How can we assess the reliability of an Attribute Measurement system?

Attribute Agreement Analysis: Some measurement systems categorize items by their attributes
to separate “good” items from “bad” ones, sort samples into “blue,” “green,” and “cyan” groups,
and assign invoices to “engineering,” “production,” or “sales” departments. These types of
measurement systems are called attribute measurement systems because they determine or
measure one or more attributes of the item being inspected.
The question is, how repeatably and reliably can one of these systems determine the specific
attribute we are looking for? For example, how repeatably and reliably does your attribute
measurement system detect “bad” disk drives from among all the “good” ones being completed
in production? To quantify how well an attribute measurement system is working, Attribute
Agreement Analysis is performed.

Attribute Agreement Analysis- Procedure
1. Set aside 15 to 30 test samples of the item you’re measuring. Make sure these samples represent the full
range of variation being encountered and make sure approximately equal amounts of each possible attribute
category
2. Create a “master” standard that designates each of the test samples into its true attribute category.
3. Select two or three typical inspectors and have them review the sample items just as they normally would in
the measurement system, but in random order. Record their attribute assessment for each item.
4. Place the test samples in a new random order, and have the inspectors repeat their attribute assessments.
(Don’t reveal the new order to the inspectors!). Record the repeated measurements.
5. For each inspector, go through the test sample items and calculate the percentage of items where their first
and second measurements agree. This percentage is the repeatability of that inspector.
6. Going through each of the sample items of the study, calculate the percentage of times where all of the
inspectors’ attribute assessments agree for the first and second measurements for each sample. This
percentage is the reproducibility of the measurement system.
7. You can also calculate the percent of the time all the inspectors’ attribute assessments agree with each other
and with the “master” standard created in Step 2. This percentage, which is referred to as the Accuracy
(effectiveness) of the measurement system

Problem 1
➢ If the measured data is discrete, and is output of results from appraisers,

then use Attribute Agreement Analysis to determine the effectiveness of
the gage.
➢ Let us illustrate with an example-
A call centre for a major credit card company handles incoming calls from
customers with account inquiries. The Quality Assurance (QA) department
conducts regular inspections of their operators by listening to recordings of
the customer calls and classifying the responses as “Good” and “Bad”. In
order to ensure high consistency among the QA team members a MSA study
was conducted with 30 recordings. Check if the measurement system is
acceptable.
< Call Quality>

Attribute Agreement Analysis Inputs
Path: Stat > Quality Tools > Attribute Agreement Analysis…

Ensure that
number of trials
for each
appraiser is
added. Do not
enter number of
samples
Do not enter the

standard/expert
here
If data is Ordinal,
then check this
box

Attribute Agreement Analysis Output- Graph
Assessment Agreement The red line with crosses atby:
Reported
Date of study:
the ends
Name of product:
represents the 95% confidence
Misc: interval of
the percentage matched.
Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

95.0% CI 95.0% CI
Percent Percent
95 95
90 90
Percent
Percent
85 85
80 80
75 75
70 70
1 2 1 2
Appraiser Appraiser
The blue dot represents the actual The figure on the right indicates the
percentage matched when measurement comparison between the appraiser
by an individual appraiser is repeated. It and the external standard. It is an
is an indication of Repeatability. indication of Accuracy.

Attribute Agreement Analysis Output - Session
Appraiser Repeatability
Repeatability % for each appraiser
Kappa Values should be greater than 0.9

for good agreement and at least greater
than 0.7 for acceptable agreement.
Ho: Kappa = 0
Ha: Kappa > 0
Since P is Low, we conclude Kappa > 0

Appraiser accuracy
Accuracy % for each appraiser
All the Kappa values are greater than 0.7

but less than 0.9. Hence, they are
acceptable with caution
P Values indicate all Kappa values are

significantly different from Zero.

Team Reproducibility
Reproducibility % for the team
Comparison between appraisers. It is an

indication of Reproducibility. Again, the
Kappa values are cautiously acceptable.
Team accuracy
Team accuracy % for the team
Comparison of the entire measurement

system (all appraisers) with the external
standard. Again, the Kappa values are
acceptable with caution
P values indicate the Kappa values are

significantly different from Zero.

Attribute Agreement Analysis- Result Analysis
I. Within Appraisers: Shows how consistent are the appraisers (students) in their
assessment. It tells the number of times each of them agree with him/herself
when evaluating the same sample in replication.
II. Each Appraiser vs. Standard:
a. Shows how often did each appraiser agree with the standard (trainer). It gives
both number and percentage.
b. Appears only when known standard is given and there are only two-levels
(true/false, go/no-go). It gives the number and percentage of times each
appraiser disagreed with the standard and across trials.
III. Between Appraisers: It gives the percentage of times all appraisers agreed with
each other. The between-appraisers statistics do not compare the appraisers'
ratings to the standard. Although the appraisers' ratings may be consistent, they
are not necessarily correct.
IV. All Appraisers vs. Standard: Determines what percentage of times did all
appraisers agree with the standard.

Attribute Agreement Analysis-Result Analysis
Fleiss’ Kappa* statistics
➢ Statistically the appraisers' responses can be compared using Kappa
values:
o If kappa = 1, then there is perfect agreement.
o If kappa = 0, then there is no agreement.
o The higher the value of kappa, the stronger the agreement.
o Negative values occur (rarely) when agreement is weaker than expected.
Classification Criteria
Accept Caution Reject
Kappa Values for > 0.9 0.7 < Kappa < 0.9 < 0.7
Nominal Data
Kendall’s Coefficient for > 0.9 0.7 < Kendall < 0.9 < 0.7
Ordinal Data
Cohen’s Kappa: Only works when there are two raters.

Fleiss’ Kappa: Calculated as the ratio of the degree of achievement achieved above
chance to the degree of achievement attainable above chance.

Recommendation after AAA
Few appraisers less than 100% on “within appraiser”

• Train those with low scores
All appraisers less than 100% on “within appraiser”

• Possibility of change needed in measurement system
Poor “between appraiser” scores

• Retraining
Poor “appraiser vs standard” scores throughout

• Possibility of change needed in the measurement system.

Practice Exercise 1
An online Image marketplace performs acceptability check on

the uploaded images via Artificial intelligence. However, 30% of
the images are not clearly classified by the AI and passed on to
manual (visual) check to be done by appraisers. Demonstrate if
the visual inspection system is acceptable.
< Image Check >

Practice Exercise 2
A mobile phone assembly unit has observed an increase in the number of

phones rejected at the final stage due to scratched screens. The production
manager cannot understand why this is happening, as each screen is
inspected for scratches before assembly, and immediately has a protective
film placed over it. This inspection is referred to as the in-line inspection, and
there has been no increase in the number of scratches detected at the in-line
inspection. The inspection is done by a team of quality technicians. They do a
visual check of every screen manufactured, by placing it under an inspection
lamp and looking for scratches. Each screen is then categorised as a Pass or a
Fail and the results are recorded by the technicians in a database. Tom
discusses the issue with the technicians, however they are adamant that
there isn’t a problem with the inspection as it has always worked well in the
past. Nevertheless, Tom feels it would be worthwhile to conduct an MSA, so
that inspection can be eliminated as a potential root cause.
< Mobile Screens >

Attribute Agreement Analysis (Ordinal data)
Kendall's coefficient
Kappa statistics represent absolute agreement between
ratings while Kendall's coefficients measure the associations
between ratings. Therefore, kappa statistics treat all
misclassifications equally, but Kendall's coefficients do not treat
all misclassifications equally. For instance, Kendall's coefficients
considers the consequences of misclassifying a perfect (rating =
5) object as bad (rating = 1) as more serious than misclassifying it
as very good (rating = 4).
Kendall's coefficient values can range from −1 to 1. A
positive value indicates positive association. A negative value
indicates negative association. The higher the magnitude, the
stronger the association.

Problem 2
A large corporation wants to conduct bulk interviews for associate position.

A team of interviewers Simpson, Montgomery, Holmes, Duncan and Hayes
will carry out the initial screening interviews by telephone. Their task is to
categorize the applicants as “Strongly Hire (2)”, “Hire (1) , “Neutral/Stand by
(0)”, “Reject (-1) and “Strongly Reject (-2)”. Before moving forward, the HR
manager wants to ensure that the team conducting the interviews is capable
of a high level of agreement. The manager creates a study based on previous
interviews that have been recorded. A panel of experts provides the “right
answer” for each candidate.
Each interviewers listens to the recorded interviews and decides whether the
candidates should be rated as -2,-1,0,1,2. Find if there is high level of
agreement among the interviewers.
< Hiring >

Path: Stat > Quality Tools > Attribute Agreement Analysis…


Attribute Agreement Analysis Output
Reproducibility
The Kendall’s coefficient is greater than

0.9 and hence acceptable. The team
conducting the interview are calibrated
very well and show high level of
agreement.
P-value indicates the Kendall’s coefficient
is significantly different from Zero.

Attribute Agreement Analysis Output
Appraiser accuracy
The Kendall’s coefficient is greater than

0.9 and hence acceptable.
P-value indicates the Kendall’s coefficient
is significantly different from Zero.

Practice Exercise 3
Delay and cost overruns are common in all projects and

construction projects are no exceptions. A questionnaire study
was conducted to identify whether various consultants working
on such projects were in agreement with regards to the
significant factors contributing to delay and cost overruns. A
questionnaire of 15 factors was carefully designed. It was
directed to 12 consultants who were supposed to use a priority
scaling from 1 to 5 (1=very low, 2=low, 3=medium, 4=high, and
5=very high) to rank each factor. Are all the consultants in
agreement? Use statistical reasoning for the same before we can
prioritize the factors.
< Cost Overruns>

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

MSA for Continuous Data
Measurement value
= True Value + Measurement Error
MSA implies assessing the existing measurement system
for the metric chosen for Project y.
Exercise – Each team should give at least two examples of

measurement errors which are observed in routine.
No parameter can
be measured
accurately!!!!!

Measurement System Analysis
Observed Variation
True Variation
Measurement
System Error
Observed
variation is
sum of part
variation and
measuremen
t system
variation.
Measurement System Analysis
When data is collected, the observed process variation includes the
following:
Observed Process Variation
Actual Process Variation Measurement System Variation
Variation due to Gauge Variation due to Operator
Resolution Bias Stability Linearity Repeatability Reproducibility
Accuracy Precision

Measurement system error
Measurement system errors can be classified into two

categories:
➢ Accuracy: the difference between the part’s measured and
actual value
➢ Precision: the variation obtained from replicate
measurements of the same or similar objects under specified
condition.

Precision vs. Accuracy
There is a Problem with Spread/ There is a problem with

Dispersion/ Precision Centering/ Accuracy
Accurate
Precise

 



LSL T USL
LSL T USL
Solution is to Squeeze the
Solution is to Shift the Mean
Spread

Accuracy- Calibration & Traceability
➢ Calibration is the process of adjusting the output on a measurement
system to agree with value of the applied standard, within a specified
accuracy.
o We need to calibrate a thermometer periodically so that we can verify that it
shows accurate temperature.
➢ Traceability is the unbroken chain of comparisons to a national or

international standard (NIST, PTB, BIS)
o Manufacture a scale – check with gages in the shop
o Validate gages with master gages (external company)
o Company’s master gages validated with established standard.
➢ Need to adequately control integrity of standards & measurement devices

o No one allowed to touch the master gage for length
o Ensure rust prevention, wear & tear etc. for mechanical gages etc.

Accuracy
The accuracy of a measurement system has three components:
➢ Bias: a measure of the inaccuracy in the measurement system; the

difference between the observed average measurement and a
master/standard value. In some organizations accuracy is used
interchangeably with bias.
➢ Linearity: a measure of how the size of the part affects the bias of
the measurement system; the difference in the observed bias
values through the expected range of measurements.
➢ Stability: a measure of how well the system performs over time;

the total variation obtained with a particular device, on the same
part, when measuring a single characteristic over time.

Stability vs. Linearity
Dotted line shows known Bell Shaped curve
value of measurement shows mean and Linear Bias
variation in repeated No Bias
Observed
values for the same
measured item.
Non-
Linear
True
Bias
Instability:
In- Accuracy
over time
Time 4:00 Time 6:00
LSL USL
Non- Linearity:
In- Accuracy
over value

Discrimination (Resolution)
The smallest division on the scale of the gage or the smallest

difference in reading that can be shown on the display of a
measuring instrument.
➢ Smallest change in a quantity being measured that causes a
perceptible change in the corresponding indication.
➢ The higher the resolution, the smaller the measurement it can
record.

Discrimination (Resolution)
Ideally, the gage (instrument) should be able to measure smaller

than one- tenth of the tolerance (or one-tenth of the range of
variation existing in the process).
If one to two feet

is the variation,
the scale should
have at least 10
gradations
(divisions) within
a foot.

Precision Elements
Precision, or measurement variation, has two

components:
➢ Repeatability: Variation observed if the same operator is asked to
measure the same unit repeatedly with the same measuring equipment.
➢ Reproducibility: Variation observed if two or more operators

measure the same unit with the same measuring equipment.
“If you cannot express what you know as figures, that means you do not know that clearly.
If you do not know it clearly, you cannot control it. If you cannot control it, luck will be the
deciding factor of the outcome. “
……Mikel J. Harry

Summary: Types of Measurement Error
➢ Accuracy: Difference between the average of observed values and the

standard.
➢ Precision: Variation observed between repeated observations of the

same unit – either due to operator or due to equipment.
➢ Linearity: Consistency of the measurement system across its entire

range.
➢ Stability: Variation which occurs with time. It is observed if the same

operator measures the same unit with the same measuring equipment over
an extended period.

Exercise
➢ Give examples of gages in real-life situations which have
o Poor accuracy
o Poor resolution
o Poor precision
o Poor stability
o Poor linearity

Criteria for Acceptance
Classification Indicator Criteria
Accuracy %Bias <5% 5-10% >10%
%Linearity
Precision % Gage R&R <10% 10-30% >30%
Continuous
Resolution Number of Distinct > 10 4 - 10 <4

Categories
Accuracy %Appraisers vs. >90% 70-90% <70%

Standard
Discrete
Precision %Within or Between >90% 70-90% <70%

Appraisers

MSA Checklist
Before conducting MSA, it is suggested that the following checklist

must be filled:
➢ Determine the gage. Are there more than one gages for the same data?
If yes, after MSA, use only the most suitable one.
➢ Define the procedure of measurement.
➢ Are there any standards available? If yes, are they correct and updated?
If yes, are they used thoroughly? If no, plan with the team to do the
same.
➢ Define the design intent of the gage or demand from supplier
o Discrimination (Resolution/ Granularity)
o Accuracy
o Precision

Gage R&R
Focuses on a the Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Measurement
System, and it’s ability to produce measurements consistently.
❑ Repeatability
o ”Within Operator Variation” - The variation in
measurements
– obtained with the SAME MEASURING INSTRUMENT when
– used several times by ONE APPRAISER while measuring the
– identical characteristic on the SAME PART.
❑ Reproducibility
o ”Between Operator Variation” – The variation in the average
– of measurements made by DIFFERENT APPRAISERS using
– the SAME MEASURING INSTRUMENT when measuring
– the identical characteristic on the SAME PART.

Gage Study for Continuous Data
➢ If the measured data is continuous, use the Gage R&R to

determine the effectiveness of the gage.
Crossed Designs Operators
Used where each part can be subject to repeated Opr1 Opr2
measurements. In this design, each part is inspected
by each operator. Example – Weight of a drug
1 2 3
Nested Designs
Used where the same part cannot be used for Parts
repeated measurements as the parts get Operators
destroyed on testing. In this design, each
operator is given different parts from the same Opr1 Opr2
batch. Example – Measuring the effect of a
drug by dissolving it in a chemical.
1 2 3 4 5 6

Continuous Gage R&R Approach
1. Prepare MSA checklist
2. Select 3-5 parts that span the entire range of variation of the process. Parts/Samples should be
representative of the population.
3. Study should be done for all operators performing the measurement. Typically, 3-5 operators
are selected.
4. Each operator should take at least three measurements on each part to check for repeatability.
The study should be conducted blind so that operators don’t recall prior readings.
• Select neutral part numbers 1-2-3
• Randomize operator measurement of parts rather than measuring in sequence.
• Collect data separately with each operator to avoid interference
5. Enter data into Minitab and perform the analysis.
6. Carry out MSA by ANOVA method as it gives more information*
7. Analyze the result based on the criteria decided for acceptance
8. Conclusions should include analyses by all applicable tools and not only Gage R&R study
9. The measurement system must be corrected and baseline redefined before the data is used for
the project.
* There are other less important methods which are not used now

Fundamental Properties
Although each measurement system may be required to have different statistical properties,
there are certain fundamental properties that define a “good” measurement system. These
include:
➢ Adequate discrimination and sensitivity. The increments of measure should be small relative
to the process variation or specification limits for the purpose of measurement. The
commonly known Rule of Tens, or 10-to-1 Rule, states that instrument discrimination should
divide the tolerance (or process variation) into ten parts or more. This rule of thumb was
intended as a practical minimum starting point for gage selection.
➢ The measurement system ought to be in statistical control. This means that under repeatable
conditions, the variation in the measurement system is due to common causes only and not
due to special causes. This can be referred to as statistical stability and is best evaluated by
graphical methods.
➢ For product control, variability of the measurement system must be small compared to the
specification limits. Assess the measurement system to the feature tolerance.
➢ For process control, the variability of the measurement system ought to demonstrate
effective resolution and be small compared to manufacturing process variation. Assess the
measurement system to the 6-sigma process variation and/or Total Variation from the MSA
study.

Gage R&R Example 1 (Crossed)
A company assembles wire connectors. The final wire length is

measured in mm manually by operators. Measurement by the
same gage is carried out for three parts by three different
operators. Find if the system is acceptable.
Observe the data in Minitab and answer the < Gage R&R Crossed Before>
following question
How many parts?

How many operators?
Each operator measures each part _________ times.
Each part is measured in total _________ times.
How many measurements in total by each operator?

Data in Pivot Table
How many parts?

How many operators?
Each operator measures each
part _________ times.
Each part is measured in total
_________ times.
How many measurements in
total by each operator?

Gage R&R Inputs
Path: Stat > Quality Tools > Gage Study > Gage R&R Study (Crossed)

Gage R&R Inputs
ANOVA method is more

accurate as it accounts for
Operator-Part interaction

GR&R Outputs
A D
B E
C F

GR&R Outputs
A D
B E
C F
WHAT DO WE LOOK FOR IN THESE CHARTS:

A. Part-to-Part to be the biggest contributor (not as shown)
B. Want Chart to be In-Control and R values close to zero. An Out-of-Control Range Chart indicates Poor Repeatability.
C. Want 50% Out-Of-Control (Indicating the Operators can tell a good part from a bad part)
D. Want Small Spread around the Mean Points of each individual Part
E. Want Mean & Spread the same between Operators
F. Want lines to be on top of each other. When they are, this indicates Good Reproducibility.

Analysis of the Graphs
A. Shows contribution of components to the total variation. The three
colors are Blue (% with respect to tolerance), Green (% with respect to
1st study variation), Orange (% with respect to variance). For a good gage,
we expect most of the contribution to the total variation should come
from the parts and very minimal (less than 30%) should come from the
Gage R&R. If all three colors are there, interpret the blue color bars. If
the tolerance has not been specified, then there will not be any blue
bars, in which case interpret the green color bars.
B. The graph is useful to find stability of repetitive measurements by

operators. Graph shows results for each operator inspecting each part. If
each operator is consistent in measuring the parts, this graph should be
close to zero and be in control. Investigate causes or re-measure for
points going beyond the control limits.

C. Depicts capability to detect different samples. The red control limits
indicate gage variation (error). The graph shows average part means.
Since most of the variation should come from the parts, we expect
the part means to be bigger than the gage variation. This means that
the operators can discern between different parts. For a good gage,
maximum number of points should go outside the control points.
D. Sample to sample variation is shown. For a good gage, we expect to

see consistent values for each part being measured by different
operators. We do expect to see different means for different parts.
The means joining the parts should not be horizontal.

E. Shows mean of measurements by operators. Each operator
measures three different parts. So, on an average all the
measurements for each operator should be consistent. For a good
gage, we expect to see a horizontal line joining the means.
F. Shows how different each operator’s measurements are for the

same and different sample. Values should be same for the same
sample. For a good gage, all line should be on top of each other. This
chart can help identify if there is an interaction between the part and
the operator. This chart will identify if there is an operator who is not
consistent with others or if there is a part that is hard to measure.

GR&R Output – Session Window
Ref
Provided for reference
Ho: There is NO interaction between parts & operator

Ha: There is interaction between parts & operator
P value is greater than Alpha (0.05), hence we accept Ho
This is GOOD
Ho: Parts have NO impact on measurement results

Ha: Parts have an impact on measurement results
This is NOT GOOD
Ho: Operators have NO impact on measurement results

Ha: Operators have an impact on measurement results
This is GOOD

GR&R Output – Session Window
1st Look for this Value. This value

should be less than 10% for the Gage to
be acceptable.
2nd Look for this Value if the tolerance

value is not available. This value should
be less than 30%, for the gage to be
acceptable.
This value should be greater than 4

(better if greater than 10). This is the
number of non-overlapping groups
within your process data that your
measurement system can discern. So,
this gage is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Calculations Behind the GR&R Numbers
➢ %Contribution =  2 GR&R /  2Total x 100%

➢ % Study Variation =  GR&R / Total x 100% = %Contribution
➢ %Tolerance = 6* x  GR&R / Tolerance x100%
➢ SN Ratio =  Parts/  GR&R
➢ Number of Distinct Categories = Round (SN Ratio x 1.41)
Classification Criteria
% Contribution <1% 1-9% >9%
% Study Variation or <10% 10-30% >30%

%Tolerance
No of Distinct Categories >10 4-10 <4
* Usually, this value is chosen as 5.15 because 99% of a normal distribution is within
2.575  of either side of mean.

Post, measurement system correction
➢ The measurement system was rejected and an improvement

exercise was taken up for the same.
➢ The MSA activity was repeated again.
➢ Find if the system is acceptable post correction
< Gage R&R Crossed After >

Gage R&R Example 2 (Crossed)
An engineer selects 10 parts that represent the expected range

of the process variation. Three operators measure the 10 parts,
three times per part, in a random order. Find if the
measurement system is acceptable.
Observe the data and < GageAIAG.xls>
answer the following
question
How many parts?

How many operators?
Each operator measures each part _________ times.
Each part is measured in total _________ times.
How many measurements in total by each operator?

Gage R&R Example 2
Operator B is NOT repeatable!
Gage is ACCEPTABLE
with GR&R less than 30%
Operator C is NOT consistent

with others!

Gage R&R Example 2
Ref
Provided for reference
GOOD. Part variations are

significant – which is what we
expect.
NOT GOOD. Operators have an

impact on measurement

Gage R&R Example 2
Cautiously
ACCEPTABLE
Cautiously
ACCEPTABLE
Cautiously
ACCEPTABLE

Practice Exercises 4
The manager of a fitness centre wants to offer

body fat percentage measurement to clients.
Because skinfold thickness is easily measured
and correlates highly with total body fat, the
manager decides to purchase a skinfold
calliper and teach his fitness trainers to
< Fitness Gage >
perform these measurements. The manager
asks 10 clients who have varying amounts of
body fat to participate in a measurement
systems analysis. Three trainers measure the
triceps skinfold thickness of the 10 clients, 2
times each, in random order. Find if the
trainers are consistent and accurate in their
measurements. (Crossed)

Practice Exercises 5
A quality control manager in a hospital laboratory wants to assess
the equipment that is used to measure blood clotting time. The
manager selects blood samples that represent the expected
range of the variation. Three technicians measure five samples
twice, for a total of 30 measurements. Each sample is unique to
the technician, that is, no two technicians measured the same
sample. Demonstrate if the measurement system is acceptable.
(Nested)
< Blood Clot >

Common reasons for unacceptable MS
➢ The operational definitions are not clear and/or not being followed by everyone.
➢ Ineffective training with respect to measurement systems, operational definitions,
etc.
➢ Issue with a particular part, measurement system, etc.
➢ Data not being recorded consistently. E.g. rounding up vs rounding down
➢ Everyone not using the same version of the current standard, checklists, drop
down menus, reference documents, software etc.
➢ Appraisers becoming bored, tired, rushed due to monotony of job.
➢ Operator/Appraiser not aware of importance of the measurement and following
the operational definition.
➢ Inconvenience during measurements. E.g. Straining of eyes, having to stretch or
twist to read the measurements or note the results
➢ Operators/Appraisers eyesight NOT OK
➢ Poor lighting conditions
➢ Sample preparation or loading issues

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

Baseline Performance – Discrete Data
In this step, our objective is to evaluate current performance of Y (output)
and baseline it for comparison post improvement. We may choose to
compute Sigma level or any of the following baseline metrics (for discrete
data)
➢ DPMO – Defects Per Million Opportunities
➢ DPU – Defects Per Unit
➢ Yield % or Defective %

DPMO method for Discrete Data
Situation 1: Sample Size, Defects, OFE known
Example: Phone calls are recorded at a call center and later evaluated. A
sample of 100 calls are heard by the quality representatives and evaluated
based on a Call Quality Checklist. There are 10 Opportunities for error in each
call. 150 defects were observed in the sample of 100 calls. What is DPMO?
Samples inspected = 100 DPO = 150/1000 = 0.15
Output
Inputs
Defects=150 DPMO = 150000

OFE=10 Zoverall = 1.04
TOFE= 10*100=1000
OFE Opportunities for error per unit = number of characteristics inspected per unit
DPO Defects per Opportunity
DPMO Defects per million Opportunity
Zoverall Sigma Level Overall

DPMO method for Discrete Data
https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/calculators/

DPU method for Discrete Data
Situation 2: Sample Size, Defects, OFE is difficult to ascertain
Example: 200 shirts were inspected for puckered seams

(considered as defects). One shirt can have more than one
puckered seam. We observed 200 defects. What is DPU?
Units inspected = 200 DPU= 200/200 = 1
Output
Inputs
Zoverall = -0.34
Defects = 200
DPU Defects per Unit


DPU method for Discrete Data

Yield method for Discrete Data
Situation 3: Sample Size, Defectives
Example: 1000 samples were inspected. 50 were found to be defective. What

is the Yield?
Units inspected = 1000 Yield= 950/1000 = 95%
Output
Inputs
Defectives = 50 Zoverall = 1.64

Non-Defectives= 1000-50=950

Yield method for Discrete Data

Practice Exercises
Practice Exercise 6: Product catalogues displayed on the website of an e-
commerce platform are being inspected to check whether the following
attributes are correct: 1.Item model number; 2.Brand name; 3.Price; 4.Image;
5. Description. 200 SKU’s were inspected, and 5 defects were observed. Use
the appropriate metric to baseline the process
Practice Exercise 7: 2000 lines of delivered code was inspected. 100 errors
were found. Use the appropriate metric to baseline the process
Practice Exercise 8: Loan files are being evaluated at a bank. A sample of 200
files was checked by the quality representatives and evaluated based on a
Quality Checklist. There are 8 Opportunities for error in each file. 50 defects
were observed in the sample of 200 files. Use the appropriate metric to
baseline the process
Practice Exercise 9: 800 pressure valves were inspected. 40 were defective.

Use the appropriate metric to baseline the process
Yield Concepts
✓ Yield
✓ It is the first-time right percentage
✓ Kinds of Yield
✓ First Time Yield (FTY)
✓ Used to determine the quality level of individual sub process
✓ Rolled Throughput Yield

✓ Shows quality of entire process. Obtained by multiplying individual FTY’s of
sub processes

Sigma level for Yield
Consider the following process.
Filling Loan Completeness Entering Customer Credit

Application of Application Application data check
Yield of 100% Yield of 92.5% Yield of 93.0% Yield of 94.4%
RTY = 1.00 × 0.925 × 0.930 × 0.944 = 0.8121 = 81.21 %
Submit Confirmation
Requisition
requisition Purchase sent to
Fill out entered to
92% requisition 95% to
purchase
85% the 95% order sent
to supplier
99% requisition
co-
computer
dept coordinator
RTY=
RTY Rolled Throughput Yield
FTY First Time Yield

Practice Exercise 10
Dough Prep Apply sauce Add cheese Add toppings Bake
FTY of Each Sub-process (The steps are sequential)

87% 90% 96% 95% 100%
You own a Pizza shop. Lately you have observed lot of wastage in various
steps of the process leading to high expense on raw materials. To resolve the
issue you have declared that employees will get a bonus at the end of the
quarter only if the overall wastage of the process is less than 30%. The data
of the FTY of each sub process (at the end of the quarter) is given above. Will
you dispense the bonus?

Practice Exercise 11
FTY of 92.5%
Waste 7.5% FTY of 93%
FTY of 94.4%
Waste 7%
Waste 5.6%

Measure Current Performance - Discrete
List of baseline metrics for Discrete Data
Data Method
Defects (Discrete) DPMO – Defects Per Million Opportunities
OFE known
Defects (Discrete) DPU – Defects Per Unit
OFE is difficult to ascertain
Defectives (Discrete) Yield (%) / Defective %

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

Baseline Performance – Continuous Data
In this step, our objective is to evaluate current performance of Y
(output) and baseline it for comparison post improvement. We
may choose to compute one of the following
➢ Zoverall – Sigma Level Overall
➢ Capability Stats – (Will be covered in the Zeta Module)

What is Six Sigma performance?
Your process is performing at sigma level of six if the difference between mean
and specification limit is six times the standard deviation
Question - How many

times of standard
LSL USL deviation (σ) are
Mean specification limits to
mean?
Answer – Same as sigma
level for the process (Z
value)
1σ ? times σ
-6σ -5σ -4σ -3σ -2σ -1σ μ +1σ +2σ +3σ +4σ +5σ +6σ

Calculation of Sigma Level
The purity of the chemical A must be at least 99%. The average
purity for the last 30 batches is 99.72% with a standard deviation
of 0.28%. Calculate the Sigma Level overall for the purity?.
USL = DPMO = 5063.995
Output
Inputs
LSL = 99 Zoverall = 2.57

Mean = 99.72
Standard Deviation = 0.28
DPMO Defects per million Opportunity


Sigma Level method for Continuous Data

IOTA – Overview

MSA Validation Data
Baseline Baseline
MSA Continuous
data
Probability
Calculations

Most Common Probability Distributions
Binomial PD Defective data
Discrete PD
Probability Distribution (PD)
Poisson PD Defect data
Normal PD Continuous data
Continuous PD Exponential PD Life- related data
Weibull PD Mechanical characteristics

Probability Calculation for Continuous Data (Normal)
If average TAT for a process is 2.5035 and standard deviation is
0.5203, what is the probability of TAT being less than 2 days.
Path: Graph > Probability Distribution Plot…

Probability Calculation- Normal Distribution
Because we within 2
days) we are selecting
left tail
Distribution Plot
Normal, Mean=2.5035, StDev=0.5203
0.8
0.7
With the current process
0.6
parameters there is 16.6
percent chance that the 0.5
Density
TAT will be equal to or 0.4
less than 2 days 0.3
0.2
0.1666
0.1
0.0
2 2.503
X

Probability calculation- Binomial distribution
The supervisor for a call centre is monitoring unanswered calls.
Client has expressed the expectation of unanswered calls to not
be more than 5%. The current process is at 10%, what is the
probability that the defective % for the next 100 calls will be at
the most 5%?

Probability calculation- Binomial distribution
Distribution Plot
Binomial, n=100, p=0.1
0.14
0.12
0.10
5.7% chance that
Probability
0.08
the next 100 calls
will have 5% or 0.06
less unanswered 0.04
calls 0.02 0.05758
0.00
5 20
X

Practice Exercises
Practice Exercise 12: A process has 2% defectives. Find the

probability of greater than one defective in a sample of 5 taken
from the process.
Practice Exercise 13: Let us say, the Indian Cricket Captain

decides to always call “heads”. A coin being flipped an outcome
of tail is considered a defective. What is the possibility of
winning at least one toss in the series when the cricket match
series has 4 matches. (Hint: Probability of event: 0.5)
Practice Exercise 14: Percentage defectives in a process is 1. A

sample of 20 is taken for inspection. Find the probability that
there will be at least three defectives.

Probability Calculation- Poisson Distribution
Quality team inspects transactions versus checklist. A fixed
sample of 100 transactions is inspected everyday and number of
errors is recorded. The current average defects (DPU) is 0.824.
Calculate the probability of having no errors in a transaction.

Probability Calculation- Poisson Distribution
Distribution Plot
Poisson, Mean=0.824
0.5
0.4387
0.4
0.3
Probability
The chance of
0.2
having a
transaction with no 0.1
defects is 43.9%.
0.0
0 4
X

Practice Exercises
Practice Exercise 15: The number of accidents on Highways of a

State per day follow Poisson Distribution. If the mean is 2 (DPU),
what is the probability that there will be zero accidents on any
day.
Practice Exercise 16: Errors in an invoice follow the Poisson

distribution with mean as 0.05 (DPU). Find the probability that
an invoice selected will have at most two errors.

Appendix 1 - Six Sigma
Lower Spec Upper Spec
6 5 4 4 5 6

Appendix 2- Sigma Level / DPMO Table

Appendix 3 - Central Limit Theorem (CLT)
Definition
Consider that a sample of size “n” with mean x and variance s2
taken from a random population with mean µ and variance 2 .
The central limit theorem states that, for large values of n, the
distribution of the sample mean, or sum, will converge to a
normal distribution even though the random variable x
(individual data points) may be non-normal
Whenever a large sample of chaotic elements

are taken in hand and marshalled in the order
of their magnitude, an unsuspected and most
beautiful form of regularity proves to have been
latent all along. - Sir Francis Galton
Central Limit Theorem
Distribution of Sample mean as sample size is increased
This may be verified by considering sample data and increasing the sample size in steps.

CLT Examples
➢ Sales for one store of a chain may not be normal. But, if we

take the sales from several stores of the same chain, the total
may be normally distributed.
➢ Height of a stack of parts may be normally distributed even if

the heights of individual parts may not be normally
distributed.
➢ The time you arrive at the office may be normally distributed

even if all the traffic lights (on/off times) are not normally
distributed.

Glossary (1/5)
A B cont… C Cont… D
•Accuracy •Binomial Distribution •Coefficient of Variation (CV) •Defectives
•Activity Based Accounting •Black Noise •Common Cause •Defects
•Agile •Blockchain •Confidence Interval •Descriptive Analytics
•Algorithm •Bootstrapping •Confidence Level •Design For Assembly (DFA)
•Alternative Hypothesis •Bottleneck •Constraint •Design Risk Analysis (DRA)
•Apples to Oranges •Box plot •Continuous Data •Design of Experiments (DOE)
•Ansoff Matrix •Brainstorming 1 •Continuous Flow •DFMEA
•ARMI •Brainstorming 2 •Control Chart 1 •DFSS
•Artificial Intelligence (AI) 1 •Bubble Plot •Control Chart 2 •Discrete Data
•Artificial Intelligence (AI) 2 •Bullwhip Effect •Control Chart 3 •Discrimination
•Attribute Agreement Analysis •Burn Down Chart •Control Limits •DMADV
•Attribute Data •Burn Up Chart •Control Plan 1 •DMAIC 1
•Automation •Business Analytics •Control Plan 2 •DMAIC 2
•Autonomation •Business Excellence •CONWIP •DMAIC 3
•Correction •DMAIC 4
B C •Corrective Action •DMAIC 5
•Balanced Scorecard 1 •Capability Analysis •Correlation-1 •DPMO 1
•Balanced Scorecard 2 •Capability Index •Correlation-2 •DPMO 2
•Baseline •Capable Process •COPQ, Cost of Poor Quality 1 •Drum Buffer Rope approach
•Bathtub Curve •Cause •COPQ, Cost of Poor Quality 2
•Bayes' Theorem •Causation •Crashing
•Bells and Whistles •Central Limit Theorem 1 •Creativity & Innovation 1
•Benford's Law •Central Limit Theorem 2 •Creativity & Innovation 2
•Ben Franklin Effect •Central Tendency •CRM
•Bessel's Correction •Chaku Chaku •Crowd Intelligence
•Bias •Change Acceleration Process •CTQ
•Biased Sampling Error •Checksheet •Customer
•Big Hairy Audacious Goal •CLOSED MITT •Customer Satisfaction (CSAT)
(B.H.A.G.) •Clusters •Cycle Time

Glossary (2/5)
E F Cont… I L
•80:20 Rule •Fraud •IDOV •Law of Large Numbers
•8D Problem Solving •Fraud Detection •Industry 4.0 •Lead Time
•Effective/Efficient •Fraud Prevention •Instruction Creep •Lean
•Efficiency •Internal Rate of Return (IRR) •Lean Six Sigma
•Efficiency Metrics G •Internet of Things (IoT) •Lessons Learned
•Eisenhower Matrix •Gage R&R 1 •Internet of Things Security •Linearity
•Elevator Pitch •Gage R&R 2 Risks •Little's Law
•Emergency Response Action 1 •Gage R&R 3 •Inter Quartile Range •Logical Sub-grouping
•Emergency Response Action 2 •Gemba •Inventory
•European Foundation for •Genchi Genbutsu •Important vs Urgent M
Quality Management (EFQM) •Green Belt •Ishikawa Diagram •Management By Walking
•Evolution of Six Sigma •Groupthink Around (MBWA)
•Excellence •Guide to Hypothesis Test J •Mean Improvement
•Exponential Function •Jidoka •Measurement System Analysis
H (MSA)
F •Hammurabi Code K •Median
•5S •Handoffs •Kaikaku •Metrics
•False Alert, Missed Alarm •Hansei •Kaizen 1 •Mistake Proofing 1
•Fast Tracking •Hawthorne Effect •Kaizen 2 •Mistake Proofing 2
•Fault Tree Analysis •Herd Immunity •Kakushin •Mistake Proofing 3
•Filter Bubble •Heuristic Methods •Kanban 1 •Mixtures
•Fishbone Diagram •Hidden Factory •Kanban 2 •Monte Carlo Simulation
•First Time Yield •Hypothesis Testing 1 •Kano Model 1
•FMEA 1 •Hypothesis Testing 2 •Kano Model 2
•FMEA 2 •Hypothesis Testing 3 •Kaplan Meier Estimator
•FMECA •Hypothesis Testing 4 •Kappa Value
•Force-Field Analysis •Kendall's Coefficient
•Forecasting •KNOT Technique
•Kurtosis

Glossary (3/5)
N P Cont… P Cont… R Cont…
•Nash Equilibrium •Paynter Chart •Project •Rework
•Net Present Value (NPV)-1 •Personal Excellence •Prototype •Risk Priority Number (RPN)
•Net Present Value (NPV)-2 •PFMEA 1 •Pull System 1 •Robotic Process Automation
•Net Present Value (NPV)-3 •PFMEA 2 •Pull System 2 (RPA) 1
•Net Promoter Score (NPS) •PICK Chart •Purple Cow •Robotic Process Automation
•Nominal Condition •Pilot •Push System 1 (RPA) 2
•Nominal Group Technique •Planning Poker •Push System 2 •Root Cause
(NGT) •Point of Use Inventory •P-value •Root Cause Analysis 1
•Noninferiority Testing •Poka-yoke •Root Cause Analysis 2
•Non Value Adding (NVA)-1 •Power of a test Q •Rolled Throughput Yield
•Non Value Adding (NVA)-2 •Pre-Control Chart •Quality Assurance •R-Squared
•Normal Distribution •Prediction Interval •Quality Control •R-Squared Adjusted
•Null Hypothesis •Predictive Analytics •Quality Costs •Run Chart
•Prescriptive Analytics •Quantile Regression
O •Precision •Quick Win
•Observation •Preventive Action
•One Factor At a Time (OFAT) •Price Elasticity of Demand R
•Operational Definition •Process •RACI
•Operational Excellence •Process Capability •Range
•Optimal Stopping •Process Cycle Efficiency •RATER Model
•Oscillations •Process Excellence •Rational Subgrouping-1
•Outlier •Process Input/Process Output •Rational Subgrouping-2
•Process Mapping 1 •Regression Analysis-1
P •Process Mapping 2 •Regression Analysis-2
•Pacemaker Process •Process Maturity •Regression Testing
•Pareto Chart 1 •Process Stability •Reporting Bias
•Pareto Chart 2 •Product Limit Estimator •Resolution
•Pascal's Triangle •Productivity •Return on Investment (ROI)

Glossary (4/5)
S S cont… T V cont…
•6 Big Losses •Simpson's Paradox •Takt Time 1 •Variation Reduction
•6S •Single Piece Flow •Takt Time 2 •Visual Control
•Sample •SIPOC •Test of Equivalence •VOB
•Sample Size-1 •Sisyphus Effect •Theory of Inventive Problem •VOC-1
•Sample Size-2 •Six Sigma Solving (TIPS) •VOC-2
•Sample Size-3 •Skewness •Time Series •VOC-3
•Sampling •SMED •TIMWOOD •VUCA
•Sampling Error •Spaghetti Diagram •Tollgate Reviews 1
•SCAMPER •Special Cause •Tollgate Reviews 2 W
•Scatter Plot •Special Process •Trends •Wastes-1
•Scope Creep •Special Requirement •Tribal Knowledge •Wastes-2
•Scrum •Specification Limit •TRIZ •Waste Elimination
•Scrum Poker •Sponsor •Turing Test •Web Analytics
•Scrumban •Spread •Type I Error •Weighted Pareto
•Secondary Metric 1 •Sprint •Type II Error •WIFM
•Secondary Metric 2 •Stability •Will Rogers Phenomenon
•Segmentation •Stable Process U •Wisdom of the Crowds
•Sensitivity Analysis •Stakeholder •Unbiased Sampling Error •Work-Out
•Service 4.0 •Stakeholder Engagement •Unusual Observation •WORMPIT
•SERVQUAL Model •Standard Deviation •Urgent
•Seven Wastes of Lean •Statistical Significance
•Severity Ranking •Stop Gap Arrangement V
•Shojinka •Stop The Line •Validation
•Sigma Level-1 •Stratified Sampling •Value Adding (VA)-1
•Sigma Level-2 •SWAG •Value Adding (VA)-2
•Swim Lane Mapping •Value Stream Map (VSM)
•Verification
•Variance

Glossary (5/5)
X
•X
•Xbar-R
Y
•Y
•Y=f(X)
•Yield-1
•Yield-2
•Yokoten
Z
•Zero Defect
•Zipf's Law
Link for World’s Best Business Excellence Dictionary –

https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/business-excellence-dictionary-glossary/
Want your name to be featured in this dictionary?

Provide the best answer to our weekly questions (2 questions per week). Click here to
check the current open question


IOTA Course Material v3.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

IOTA Course Material v3.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOTA Course Material v3.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BENCHMARK SIX SIGMA

BLACK BELT PROGRAM

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 1

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 2

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 5

RAB ASQ Exemplar

Jan, 1989, Jan, 2005 Oct, 2013

RAB: Registrar Accreditation Board, USA

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 6

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 7

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 8

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 9

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 10

Cause Data (x’s) Performance Data (Y or y’s)

Input Process Output

Performance Data Cause Data

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 11

➢ For the primary metric, project Y, we define how we measure

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 12

Iota, Ι Zeta, Z Epsilon, Ε Theta, Θ Omega Ω

Measurement System Hypotheses and

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 13

Iota, Ι Zeta, Z Epsilon, Ε Theta, Θ Omega Ω

Measurement System Hypotheses and

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 14

Introduction to Logical MSA Discrete

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 15

MSA is a collection of methods you can

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 16

Measurement System Type of data MSA

Ordinal (Discrete) Attribute agreement analysis

Measurement Resolution, Accuracy, Gage R&R

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 17

Introduction to Logical MSA Discrete

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 18

Logical validation can be done by checking the boundary conditions - do the

Copier Repair Time

Start Point Stop Point

Is the time stopped when the copier is really fixed?

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 19

➢ A project is selected to reduce the inventory of finished goods to less than

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 20

Introduction to Logical MSA Discrete

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 21

How can we assess the reliability of an Attribute Measurement system?

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 22

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 23

➢ If the measured data is discrete, and is output of results from appraisers,

➢ Let us illustrate with an example-

< Call Quality>

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 24

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 25

Do not enter the

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 26

Within Appraisers Appraiser vs Standard

© Benchmark Six Sigma. Version 3.2 All Rights Reserved 27

Repeatability % for each appraiser

Kappa Values should be greater than 0.9