Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Best Target Value for a Production Process

Best Target Value for a Production Process TECHNICAL AIDS by Lloyd S. Nelson Best Target Value for a Production Process Symbol Definition The Example ON SIDE R individual items produced continu­ ously. Each item is checked to determine r Income per item from sale 37e whether it satisfies a lower specification. (For an of rejected item, less any upper specification, changes in what follows will "repair" cost be obvious.) Items passed are sold at the regular 9 Cost per unit of excess qual- SSe/lb. ity price. Items failing are either sold at a reduced price or brought up to specification, thereby incur­ Hunter and Kartha [1] indicate that a graphical ring a cost of fixing. If the process is set high solution for 8*/0- is convenient. They provide both enough, the chance of producing rejectable items a figure and a table of 8*/0- versus go-/(a - r), can be made essentially zero. However, this will Figure 1 has been prepared as a 4-cycle arithmetic be at the expense of producing items considerably plot to provide increased accuracy in the graphical above specification; that is, items much better determination of 8*/0-. than they have to be. The cost of this extra quality For possible use either in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Quality Technology Taylor & Francis

Best Target Value for a Production Process

Nelson, Lloyd S.
Journal of Quality Technology , Volume 10 (2): 2 – Apr 1, 1978
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/best-target-value-for-a-production-process-vFhUYUOIXa

References (1)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright 1978 ASQ
ISSN
0022-4065
eISSN
2575-6230
DOI
10.1080/00224065.1978.11980824
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

TECHNICAL AIDS by Lloyd S. Nelson Best Target Value for a Production Process Symbol Definition The Example ON SIDE R individual items produced continu­ ously. Each item is checked to determine r Income per item from sale 37e whether it satisfies a lower specification. (For an of rejected item, less any upper specification, changes in what follows will "repair" cost be obvious.) Items passed are sold at the regular 9 Cost per unit of excess qual- SSe/lb. ity price. Items failing are either sold at a reduced price or brought up to specification, thereby incur­ Hunter and Kartha [1] indicate that a graphical ring a cost of fixing. If the process is set high solution for 8*/0- is convenient. They provide both enough, the chance of producing rejectable items a figure and a table of 8*/0- versus go-/(a - r), can be made essentially zero. However, this will Figure 1 has been prepared as a 4-cycle arithmetic be at the expense of producing items considerably plot to provide increased accuracy in the graphical above specification; that is, items much better determination of 8*/0-. than they have to be. The cost of this extra quality For possible use either in

Journal

Journal of Quality Technology – Taylor & Francis

Published: Apr 1, 1978

Keywords: Optimum Target Value; Process Control Economics; Process Optimization

There are no references for this article.