This document summarizes key concepts in quality management, including:
- The difference between quality control (post-facto) and quality assurance (apriori). Assurance diminishes the need for control.
- Quality and motivation are linked, and organizations must be quality-conscious at every step.
- Quality planning and auditing may be centralized while implementation and control are decentralized.
- Organizational structure can help or hinder quality by facilitating or limiting information flow.
- Quality management requires both policing bad products and advising on design/planning for quality.
Dear students get fully solved PGDHHM assignments
Send your semester & Specialization name to our mail id :
“ help.mbaassignments@gmail.com ”
or
Call us at : 08263069601
In this comprehensive presentation, there is detailed critical aspects of ensuring compliance with Measurement Uncertainty (MU) requirements outlined in the ISO 15189:2012 standard. Focused on laboratories in the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program, the guidance explores ongoing routines such as Quality Control, Proficiency testing, Calibration, Multi-instrument comparison, Method comparison, and Data generation supporting analytical measurement range. The presentation provides clarity on the determination of MU for each measurement procedure and recommends practices for accessing confidence levels. Exclusions, key definitions, and a practical example of MU are highlighted, along with a comparison of Accuracy vs. Precision. This informative session aims to equip medical professionals with a nuanced understanding of MU for robust quality assurance
“An AQL System for Lot-By-Lot Acceptance Sampling By Attributes Selecting an ...IOSR Journals
The choice among various possible types of acceptance inspection procedures is essentially an
economic one. In making a decision regarding acceptance inspection for any particular purpose, it may be
desirable to consider not only various possible systems or procedures of acceptance sampling by attributes but
also the alternatives of (1) no inspection at all, but imposition of a requirement that statistical evidence of
satisfactory quality be provided with each lot; (2) 100% inspection; and (3) possibilities of acceptance sampling
by variables. It also is true that a satisfactory evaluation of all the pertinent economic factors is often quite
difficult. For this reason, the choice of an acceptance procedure is commonly made on an intuitive basis. An
important element of the selection of an acceptance inspection procedure should be the probable contribution of
the procedure to quality improvement. The acceptance sampling systems and procedures described in this and
the following chapters have often been strikingly successful in leading to such improvements.
Safety in design paper a live picture of organisational risk by linking risk...Alex Apostolou
Bowties are an efficient, highly adaptable and well-accepted tool for the visualisation and analysis of risk. Even to the untrained eye, the bow tie’s map-like elements are quickly intuited (overall shape, left-to-right flow of linked boxes, standard labels, etc.) and help to define the risk’s dimensions, boundaries and interactions, encouraging navigation, exploration, discovery and hopefully, preparedness.
However, by virtue of their scenario-based frame of reference there is often a great deal of overlap within bowtie registers. Left unresolved in an assurance process, these overlaps would increase the resourcing and verification burden unsustainably.
This case study provides an insight to the key learnings from the implementation of an integrated risk management and control assurance program into an explosives and chemicals manufacturing organisation with 65+ sites. Key amongst the objectives was the creation of a live risk profile to best guide budgetary decision-making for risk reduction, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of current fatality risk and control at all levels of the business – in the most resource efficient manner possible.
The implemented solution involved identifying the common elements in more than 1,600 bowties and managing them centrally, providing a highly-leveraged assurance approach delivering site and corporate risk profiling at a lower cost, in-built continuous improvement, real-time data sharing, and dynamically calculated bowties; all managed with little or no on-site expertise.
Dear students get fully solved PGDHHM assignments
Send your semester & Specialization name to our mail id :
“ help.mbaassignments@gmail.com ”
or
Call us at : 08263069601
In this comprehensive presentation, there is detailed critical aspects of ensuring compliance with Measurement Uncertainty (MU) requirements outlined in the ISO 15189:2012 standard. Focused on laboratories in the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program, the guidance explores ongoing routines such as Quality Control, Proficiency testing, Calibration, Multi-instrument comparison, Method comparison, and Data generation supporting analytical measurement range. The presentation provides clarity on the determination of MU for each measurement procedure and recommends practices for accessing confidence levels. Exclusions, key definitions, and a practical example of MU are highlighted, along with a comparison of Accuracy vs. Precision. This informative session aims to equip medical professionals with a nuanced understanding of MU for robust quality assurance
“An AQL System for Lot-By-Lot Acceptance Sampling By Attributes Selecting an ...IOSR Journals
The choice among various possible types of acceptance inspection procedures is essentially an
economic one. In making a decision regarding acceptance inspection for any particular purpose, it may be
desirable to consider not only various possible systems or procedures of acceptance sampling by attributes but
also the alternatives of (1) no inspection at all, but imposition of a requirement that statistical evidence of
satisfactory quality be provided with each lot; (2) 100% inspection; and (3) possibilities of acceptance sampling
by variables. It also is true that a satisfactory evaluation of all the pertinent economic factors is often quite
difficult. For this reason, the choice of an acceptance procedure is commonly made on an intuitive basis. An
important element of the selection of an acceptance inspection procedure should be the probable contribution of
the procedure to quality improvement. The acceptance sampling systems and procedures described in this and
the following chapters have often been strikingly successful in leading to such improvements.
Safety in design paper a live picture of organisational risk by linking risk...Alex Apostolou
Bowties are an efficient, highly adaptable and well-accepted tool for the visualisation and analysis of risk. Even to the untrained eye, the bow tie’s map-like elements are quickly intuited (overall shape, left-to-right flow of linked boxes, standard labels, etc.) and help to define the risk’s dimensions, boundaries and interactions, encouraging navigation, exploration, discovery and hopefully, preparedness.
However, by virtue of their scenario-based frame of reference there is often a great deal of overlap within bowtie registers. Left unresolved in an assurance process, these overlaps would increase the resourcing and verification burden unsustainably.
This case study provides an insight to the key learnings from the implementation of an integrated risk management and control assurance program into an explosives and chemicals manufacturing organisation with 65+ sites. Key amongst the objectives was the creation of a live risk profile to best guide budgetary decision-making for risk reduction, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of current fatality risk and control at all levels of the business – in the most resource efficient manner possible.
The implemented solution involved identifying the common elements in more than 1,600 bowties and managing them centrally, providing a highly-leveraged assurance approach delivering site and corporate risk profiling at a lower cost, in-built continuous improvement, real-time data sharing, and dynamically calculated bowties; all managed with little or no on-site expertise.
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers new opportunities to radically reinvent the way we do business. This study explores how CEOs and top decision makers around the world are responding to the transformative potential of AI.
Senior Project and Engineering Leader Jim Smith.pdfJim Smith
I am a Project and Engineering Leader with extensive experience as a Business Operations Leader, Technical Project Manager, Engineering Manager and Operations Experience for Domestic and International companies such as Electrolux, Carrier, and Deutz. I have developed new products using Stage Gate development/MS Project/JIRA, for the pro-duction of Medical Equipment, Large Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Appliances, HVAC, and Diesel engines.
My experience includes:
Managed customized engineered refrigeration system projects with high voltage power panels from quote to ship, coordinating actions between electrical engineering, mechanical design and application engineering, purchasing, production, test, quality assurance and field installation. Managed projects $25k to $1M per project; 4-8 per month. (Hussmann refrigeration)
Successfully developed the $15-20M yearly corporate capital strategy for manufacturing, with the Executive Team and key stakeholders. Created project scope and specifications, business case, ROI, managed project plans with key personnel for nine consumer product manufacturing and distribution sites; to support the company’s strategic sales plan.
Over 15 years of experience managing and developing cost improvement projects with key Stakeholders, site Manufacturing Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Maintenance, and facility support personnel to optimize pro-duction operations, safety, EHS, and new product development. (BioLab, Deutz, Caire)
Experience working as a Technical Manager developing new products with chemical engineers and packaging engineers to enhance and reduce the cost of retail products. I have led the activities of multiple engineering groups with diverse backgrounds.
Great experience managing the product development of products which utilize complex electrical controls, high voltage power panels, product testing, and commissioning.
Created project scope, business case, ROI for multiple capital projects to support electrotechnical assembly and CPG goods. Identified project cost, risk, success criteria, and performed equipment qualifications. (Carrier, Electrolux, Biolab, Price, Hussmann)
Created detailed projects plans using MS Project, Gant charts in excel, and updated new product development in Jira for stakeholders and project team members including critical path.
Great knowledge of ISO9001, NFPA, OSHA regulations.
User level knowledge of MRP/SAP, MS Project, Powerpoint, Visio, Mastercontrol, JIRA, Power BI and Tableau.
I appreciate your consideration, and look forward to discussing this role with you, and how I can lead your company’s growth and profitability. I can be contacted via LinkedIn via phone or E Mail.
Jim Smith
678-993-7195
jimsmith30024@gmail.com
The case study discusses the potential of drone delivery and the challenges that need to be addressed before it becomes widespread.
Key takeaways:
Drone delivery is in its early stages: Amazon's trial in the UK demonstrates the potential for faster deliveries, but it's still limited by regulations and technology.
Regulations are a major hurdle: Safety concerns around drone collisions with airplanes and people have led to restrictions on flight height and location.
Other challenges exist: Who will use drone delivery the most? Is it cost-effective compared to traditional delivery trucks?
Discussion questions:
Managerial challenges: Integrating drones requires planning for new infrastructure, training staff, and navigating regulations. There are also marketing and recruitment considerations specific to this technology.
External forces vary by country: Regulations, consumer acceptance, and infrastructure all differ between countries.
Demographics matter: Younger generations might be more receptive to drone delivery, while older populations might have concerns.
Stakeholders for Amazon: Customers, regulators, aviation authorities, and competitors are all stakeholders. Regulators likely hold the greatest influence as they determine the feasibility of drone delivery.
The Team Member and Guest Experience - Lead and Take Care of your restaurant team. They are the people closest to and delivering Hospitality to your paying Guests!
Make the call, and we can assist you.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
Oprah Winfrey: A Leader in Media, Philanthropy, and Empowerment | CIO Women M...CIOWomenMagazine
This person is none other than Oprah Winfrey, a highly influential figure whose impact extends beyond television. This article will delve into the remarkable life and lasting legacy of Oprah. Her story serves as a reminder of the importance of perseverance, compassion, and firm determination.
Leadership Ethics and Change, Purpose to Impact Plan
Production & Operation Management Chapter10[1]
1. CHAPTER 10: QUALITY MANAGEMENT – II
Response to Questions
1. Quality control is post facto i.e. ‘after the fact’; Quality Assurance is apriori
i.e. ‘before’ something can occur.
Control is for repair and restoration whereas assurance is for prevention.
Assurance diminishes/eliminates the need for control.
2. Quality and motivation are intimately linked. Whatever may be the level of
automation in processing / operations, the human factor is very important
in quality. Behavioural sciences, therefore, can play a big role in quality.
An organization has to be quality-conscious at every step of its
functioning.
3. The implementation and control of quality will be with the respective
division. Quality Planning and Quality Audit may be centralized functions
so as to maintain the thrust and uniformity of quality policies across the
various divisions.
4. Organizational structure would indicate as to how quality will be planned,
implemented and controlled. The organizational structure would also help
or hinder the flow of information related to quality. For instance, too many
hierarchical levels tend to dissipate information that could be vital. Also,
certain kinds of organization structures would encourage greater lateral
flows and interactions for quality.
5. Quality management needs both: the policeman and the adviser. Bad
quality product has to be ruthlessly weeded out, like a policeman would
keep out the trouble-makers. However, just like crime in society cannot be
eliminated by police action alone, quality cannot be established unless
there is good conceptualization, conscious design, clear plan and
excellent motivation levels for quality across the entire organization.
The advisory role will be evident in conceptualization, design and planning
for quality; the policing role would be in strict implementation and quality
control.
6. The limitation of statistical quality control, ironically, is in its strength viz.
statistics. Statistics is applicable when there is a large population, i.e. it is
applicable in mass production or repeated operations. Now-a-days,
customers are asking for a large variety and almost ‘customized’ or
unique products/services. Unitized production and Just-in-Time
production are quite common place. The ‘science of averages’ viz.
statistics has limited use in such cases. The emphasis is, therefore,
2. 2
increasingly on producing ‘right quality first time’ and ‘zero defects.’ An
error, when it occurs is attended to and examined as an event that stands
out rather than as a part of the statistics of errors.
7. The vital information given by an OC curve is:
a. for the consumer : the ‘ bad’ quality materials that can enter into his
operations system; and
b. for the producer/supplier: the ‘good’ quality products that can get
rejected, thus contributing to the cost of the supplier organization.
In sensitive production systems (i.e. systems sensitive to bad quality),
above mentioned point (a) is vital. Sampling plans and the corresponding
OC curves are, therefore, very important.
8. A sample is taken and a measurement of a specified quality characteristic
is made on each unit. These measurements are then summarized into a
simple statistic (e.g., sample average) and the observed value compared
with an allowed value defined in the plan. A decision is then made to
accept or reject the lot.
9. Refer to the response to Question # 7. The idea behind AOQL is that at
no point in time should bad quality inputs enter the production system
beyond a certain level. The AOQL and the corresponding sampling plan
would thus insulate the production system from any damage.
10.If most of the parts are procured from outside, the vendors need to have a
‘zero defect’ programme in their firms. Companies that have ‘zero defect’
programmes need to convince their vendors to have ‘zero defects’
programme in their firms.
11.The interfaces of Quality Control and Purchasing are at:
a. the quality of the materials being purchased.
b. the selection of the vendor/s who could consistently supply
materials / components of the required quality.
c. The training, motivation and development of vendors to have
policies and programmes in line with the purchasing firm’s
objectives and policies.
12.‘Producer’s risk’ and ‘Consumer’s risk’ together can fix or determine an
OC curve (i.e. a sampling plan). A particular value of AOQL may
correspond to various pairs of these two risks. If the producer’s risk and
AOQL are specified, the sampling plan also gets specified.
13. Sequential and double sampling may not always produce cost
economies. Sometimes the first sampling in ‘double sampling’ and the
3. 3
initial few samples in ‘sequential sampling’ may not produce a conclusive
result (viz. accept the lot or reject the lot). When that happens, the
cumulative sample size may be larger than that in single sampling.
14.Reliability is the probability of survival and, hence, depends upon the
defectives/defects rate. Quality Control function controls the defectives
rate and, thus, controls the ‘reliability.’
15.Manufacturing personnel can check the quality of their own produce; they
can check the process variables and thus control quality. Such self-
feedback is quick and timely.
While manufacturing takes over some of these functions, Quality
Management may carry out other functions such as quality planning,
quality audit, etc. These functions can help Quality Management to retain
essential control over quality.
16.Answers are evident from the text.
17. Larger sample size would increase the discrimination of the acceptance
sampling procedure, i.e. the OC curve would get tighter.
For the same sample size if the acceptance number is decreased, the
discrimination of the sampling procedure would increase, i.e. the OC curve
would get tighter.
Doubling the sample size and the acceptance number simultaneously will
make the OC curve tighter.
Decreasing the sample size or increasing the acceptance number will
have the reverse effect.
18. n=300 & C=6 corresponds to curve a
n=100 & C=2 corresponds to curve b
n=25 & C=4 corresponds to curve c
Note: (ii) > (i) > (iii) with respect to discrimination and a > b > c.
Therefore:
(ii) corresponds to a,
(i) corresponds to b, and
(iii) corresponds to c.
19.Dodge-Romig tables make it simpler to compute the sampling plan
corresponding to the requirements of quality.
4. 4
20.In the case of a continuous production process, the issue is not one of
acceptance sampling but of process control. Accordingly, the process has
to be periodically monitored and, if necessary, corrected.
21.To summarize the problem: There is a sampling plan (n=70, c=2) which
has so far been quite adequate. However, now the process average (of
defectives) has changed. In order to continue having the same AOQL
protection (2 per cent), should the sampling plan be modified?
If we have understood the concept of AOQL by means of the earlier
examples, it should be clear to us that the AOQ vs fraction defectives (p)
graph (i.e. relationship) is independent of the average level of defectives.
The AOQ vs ‘p’ behaviour is dependent only on the sampling plan. So, as
long as the sampling plan remains the same, the ordnance factory should
not be worried about any changes in the average level of defectives
arriving in the shipments from the supplier, so long as all the rejected
consignments are 100 per cent inspected by the supplier (or at his cost)
and returned (or replaced) by consignments containing all good items.
However, since the process average has changed, the inspection load
also would have changed for the supplier. We can use the Dodge-Romig
Single Sampling table, to reduce the average total inspection load. The
table given in Appendix III is for AOQL = 2.0 per cent and therefore is
suitable. The plan of (n=70, c=2) is not quite the best plan (from the total
inspection load point of view only) for the earlier process average of 0.5
per cent (1 in 200) defectives. Looking under the column for process
averages range 0.41-0.80, we get (n=95, c=3) for a lot size of 15,000
(range 10,000 – 20,000 as in the table). n=95, c=3 would therefore have
provided the minimum inspection load.
Now the process average falls in the range, 0.81 – 1.20 (1 in 100).
Correspondingly the most appropriate sampling plan is: (n=190, c=6). The
ordnance factory may consider adopting it.
Incidentally, it may be interesting to note in the table (Appendix III) that as
we move to higher levels of process average defectives, the LTPD keeps
dropping. For the same level of AOQL protection, why is it necessary for
the LTPD to decline? How does it help in minimizing the inspection load?
22. As per the problem, HMML’s only requirement is that AOQL = 2.0 per
cent, whereas Lele needs reduced inspection load and better
discrimination (i.e. higher probability of acceptance for his really good
lots).
Dodge-Romig Single Sampling table for AOQL of 2.0 per cent (Appendix
III) contains various sampling plans which all have AOQL of 2.0 per cent.
5. 5
HMML can pick any one of them that corresponds to the lot size range
10,000 – 20,000. In fact, the present sampling plan of (n=100, c=2)
appears to be far too stringent. If we refer to the other Dodge-Romig table
(of given LTPD) i.e. Appendix II, we find that for a large lot size such as
5,000 to 10,000, the plan of (n=105, c=2) gives an AOQL of 1.3 per cent.
The plan of (100, 2) would be close to that value of AOQL. We can
compute the AOQL, but it is not necessary to make complicated
calculations, particularly when we have a workable approximation.
The present plan can be replaced by the one that gives an AOQL of 2.0
per cent. For a lot size of 10,000 to 20,000, Appendix III offers several
sampling plans:
(70, 2); (95, 3); (190, 6); (290, 9); and (460, 14)
Any of the above can be chosen; but the best of them would be the one
that corresponds to the process average defectives in Lele’s shipments (in
the long-run). However, the latter figure has not been furnished. Hence,
we shall at least try to choose the plan option which has about the same
LTPD value (i.e. for β of 0.10) for the old (100, 2) plan. The old plan has
an LTPD of roughly five per cent. Referring to Dodge-Romig AOQL table
viz. Appendix III, this is obtained in the option: (n=290, c=9).
We can accept this solution. However it is possible that the inspection load
of HMML will go up. Also, one may try a sample size of a little higher than
100 and keep the cut-off value at 3 (i.e., only other integer value possible
after 2). The reader may find that it is difficult to keep the cut-off value at
an integer, have an AOQL of around 2.0 per cent and LTPD of around 5
per cent (i.e. for β of 0.10). Thus, we will settle at (n=290, c=9).
6. 6
CHAPTER 10: QUALITY MANAGEMENT – II
Objective Questions
1. In controlling quality, sampling is resorted to because:
a. it saves cost
√b. it saves time and cost
c. it offers more insight
d. a, b & c
2. Acceptance Sampling procedure follows:
a. Binomial distribution
b. Normal distribution
c. Poisson distribution
√d. none of the above
3. Sequential sampling, carried to the fullest extent, can sometimes lead to
no result.
a. True √b. False
4. A larger acceptance number tends to make the OC curve tighter.
a. True √b. False
5. The discrimination under the sampling plan of (50, 1) is greater than under
the sampling plan of (100, 2)
a. True √b. False
6. Dodge-Romig tables are for:
a. acceptance sampling on variables
√b. acceptance sampling on attributes
c. a & b
d. statistical process control
7. A high cost of quality indicates:
a. bad process
b. competitive market
√c. a & b
d. none of the above
8. Acceptance sampling occurs because we accept defectives production
and then search for them through sampling.
√a. True b. False
9. The inspection load of sequential sampling is always lower than that for
single sampling for the same quality characteristics.
a. True √b. False
7. 7
10.A flat organization structure is conducive to better quality
√a. True b. False
11.AQL is:
a. the best quality that the supplier sends in
b. the worst quality that a firm accepts
√c. a notional point for good quality
d. none of the above
12.An OC curve is unique for a sampling plan.
√a. Yes
b. No
c. A maximum of two sampling plans are possible.
13.(AQL, producer’s risk) and (LTPD, Consumer’s risk) would be sufficient to
define a sampling plan.
√a. True b. False
14.AOQL is:
a. average of AQLs (acceptable quality levels)
b. the best quality output that a firm can send out
c. a & b
√d. none of the above
15.LTPD is:
a. the worst quality that a firm accepts
b. the worst quality that can occur in a lot
c. per cent of the time the lot with given defectives is accepted
(tolerated)
√d. none of the above.
16.AOQL depends upon:
a. the process and its variation
√b. the sampling plan
c. a & b
d. none of the above
17.Average outgoing quality limit is:
√a. limit of bad quality input
b. upper limit of good quality output
c. a & b
d. average of the quality of output
8. 8
18.For obtaining the same acceptance quality performance, one may have
different LTPDs with corresponding different consumer risks.
√a. True b. False