Juran in his book: Managerial Breakthrough makes a distinction between
innovation or "breakthrough" and "control". David Hoyle in his book; ISO
9000 Quality System Development Handbook  associates Deming's PLAN, DO,
STUDY, ACT cycle with control and discusses the Juran "Breakthrough"
sequence.

I think the Deming cycle is more that merely a control cycle. Properly, used
the process sequence would identify the need for "Breakthrough".

I think Process Control is the act of monitoring process variables to limit
variation in process results to "common" or unassignable causes. SPC is the
use of statistics to identify when a process has come under the influence of
variation from a "special" or potentially assignable input variable(s)

Management must enable both control and breakthrough.

Breakthrough is glamorous.

Control is not a normal state, it is achieved as a result of the application
of knowledge and great effort.

How do we create a managment system that encourages innovation and control?
Maybe we should not use the term Process Control, rather Process Managment.
We don't want SPC but SPM.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Earl Moon
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] A SERIOUS QUALITY QUESTION
>
>
> Kind folks,
>
> Before I go off in the frozen tundra in my current MI location,
> to finish my
> book, I need some input on the following:
>
> Process control is defined as using process capabilities
> in an efficient, effective, consistent manner. To say a process is
> in control means the process is operating without assignable cause.
> If assignable cause is found, the process is out of control, and
> must be corrected, redesigned, and re-characterized. If a process is
> found to be in control it does not mean it is capable of meeting
> product acceptance specifications. It simply means it is consistent ? good
> or bad.
>
> Process capabilities charts (Cpk) describe the relationship
> between process
> control and product quality. When process capabilities are statistically
> proven to provide specified product quality, they are capable of providing
> product meeting customer/contract requirements.
>
> The above factors should be considered at the design concept level. Then,
> DFM/CE has a firm footing so a concept may be turned into a design capable
> of being manufactured as a product meeting specified customer contract
> requirements.
>
> Just a bit wordy, as usual, but do these words have validity in today?s
> ?just do it? world. I mean, does what Juran, and others, have
> been preaching
> so long, have meaning for us in light of some of the previous discussions
> concerning quality systems, ISO, too much restraint, not enough creative
> freedom, and all the rest?
>
> MoonMan