187 views

Uploaded by Harshi Aggarwal

aaa

- A Guide to Control Charts
- X-bar R chart
- Statistical process quality control charts
- Six Sigma - Chapter 5 (1)
- Speech by W E Deming
- SSGB Question Paper 21 June 15 Delhi
- Poloroid Report
- The_Book_of_SPC
- Handling of OOT
- Quality Control
- 7 Qc Tools Bhel
- Grade Control
- Statistics in India
- System of Limits, Fits and tolerancing.pptx
- Evaluating Drug Literature a Statistical Approach PDF
- Limits and Tolerance
- tolerance.pdf
- Mark Wilson-Constructing Measures_ an Item Response Modeling Approach-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2005)
- Md. Imrul Kaes - Six Sigma 2013-4-20
- 58235646-Limits

You are on page 1of 16

Teaching Notes

As a result of increased global competition, a rapidly growing number of companies of all sizes are paying much more attention to issues involving quality and productivity. Many statistical techniques are available to assist organizations in improving the quality of their products and services. It is important for companies to use these techniques in the context of an overall quality system (Total Quality Management) which requires quality awareness, careful planning and commitment to quality at all levels of the organization. Many companies are not only utilizing these statistical techniques themselves, but are also requiring their suppliers to meet certain standards of quality based on various statistical measures. This chapter covers the statistical applications of quality control. Control charts are given the primary emphasis, but other quality control topics such as process capability analysis is also important. Through the use of control charts, the nonrandom (special) causes of variation will be controlled, and random (common) causes of variation will be analyzed through process capability.

**Answers to Discussion & Review Questions
**

1. The elements in the control process are: a. b. c. d. e. f. Define Measure Compare to standard Evaluate Take corrective action if needed Evaluate corrective action to ensure it is working

2. Control charts are based on the premise that a process which is stable will reflect only randomness. Statistics of samples taken from the process (means, number of defects, etc.) will conform to a sampling distribution with known characteristics. From this, control limits are determined. Observing a sample statistic outside the control limits or a trend in sample statistic indicates the process has significantly changed, hence there must be an assignable cause. 3. Control charts are used to judge whether the sample data reflects a change in the parameters (e.g., mean) of the process. This involves a yes/no decision and not an estimation of process parameters. 4. Order of observation of process output is necessary if patterns (e.g., trends, cycles) in the output are to be detected. 5. a. x chart - A control chart used to monitor process by focusing on the central tendency of a process. b. Range control charts are used to monitor process, focusing on the dispersion of a process. c. p-chart - is a control chart used to monitor the proportion of defectives in a process. d. c-chart - is a control chart used to monitor the number of defects per unit. 6. Specifications are limits on the range of variation of output which are set by design (e.g., engineering, customers). Control limits are statistical bounds on a sampling

Instructor’s Manual, Chapter 10

175

degree of human involvement. Moreover. cost of inspection. unacceptable output will result. c. length of a bolt. This “problem” often goes undetected since there are no complaints from customers about output being within specs. less capable machine. c. fail. Use 100 percent inspection to weed out the defectives. Raw materials & purchased parts. If destructive testing is required.). pass vs. 8. In using a p chart 176 Operations Management. 7. need for specialized equipment. or the point (number of units inspected) at which the marginal cost of inspection equals the marginal benefit from inspection. and the need for a more favourable testing environment.. Attempt to convince customer (offer a lower price?) to widen tolerances or engineering (communicate the cost of 100 percent inspection if relevant). An x chart usually requires taking measurements in data to monitor the average of a process. If not. Type II error Memo Writing Exercise A p-chart is used to monitor the proportion of defective units generated by a process. However. bad. while an x chart is used to monitor the central tendency of a process (i. tensile strength of a rubber product. this may not be feasible. Attempt to substitute a different machine (e. Type I error b. b. Control limits are a function of process variability as well as sample size and confidence level. it is quite possible to realize decreased costs or more profits by taking certain actions. before an irreversible process. freeing up this equipment for more demanding work. need for quick decision. a. it may be that the tolerance is necessary for proper functioning of the final product or service. stability of process. and the number and size of lots. Process variability refers to the inherent variability of a processthe extent to which the output of a process will tend to vary due to chance. before a costly operation. Still a third option would be to cut back on inspection since virtually 100 percent of the output will be acceptable. The problem is that customers/engineers may resent this suggestion depending on how it is handled.g.e. Examples of characteristics requiring an x chart include measurement of a diameter of a tire. 10. finished products.distribution. d. Cost of product or service. 2/ce . perhaps the job could be shifted to another. A “marketing approach” to this problem might be to see if the customer is willing to pay more for output that meets narrower tolerances. b. A p chart classifies the observations into one of two mutually exclusive categories (good vs. and before a covering process. a. cost of letting undetected defects slip through. Both are essentially independent of tolerances. They indicate the extent to which summary values such as sample means or sample ranges will tend to vary solely on a chance basis. cost of process interruption. inspection time. etc. volume. Among the possible options that should be considered are: a. An optimum level of inspection is one where the cost and effort of inspection equals the benefits derived from inspection. change in the mean or the nominal value of a process). and weight of a cereal box. The main issues in the decision of whether to inspect on site or in a central location are the situation (size & mobility). The problem is that even when the machine is functioning as well as it can. importance to avoid extraneous factors affecting samples or tests. 9. a newer one) which has the capability to handle the job.

78(0.5 a.000 1.4 UCL = 81.2 kg.995 1.990 1.45) = .22(0.895 * * * * * * UCL [z = 2.5 kg. nondefective. -2. the p chart requires a considerably larger sample size than the x chart. Mean Chart: ± A2 = 3.801 b. [assume µ = ] σ = .5 +2.5 ± .58(1.96 ± 0. Table B 0 24. On the other hand. the training required for p chart is simpler than the training required for x and R chart.2 = 24.0062 From Appendix B.90) 2. when the characteristic in question is a dichotomous classification (defective vs. the process is in control.5 ± 2 = 24.data collection is usually easier because instead of taking actual measurements.1 2.3 1. n = 10 a.0 for 95. 2. LCL = 78.010 2.96 ± 1.6 b. x chart is usually preferred over p chart for characteristics that require taking actual measurements because the lower number of observations and higher information content will outweigh the extra cost of measurement. In addition.45 D4 = 1.1 ± 0. spec’s: 24 kg. Solutions 1. Control limits: µ ± 2 σ n b.6 = 79.22 = 0. LCL is D3= 0.0 .31(0. Range Mean Chart: ± A2= 79.015 2.96 Range Chart: UCL is D4= 1.24% .86 4.5 z= = 2. . µ ± 2 n 16 µ = 2.2 .1 or 24.991 litres 5 LCL 3.0 + 2 = 2.01 litre n=5 a. on vs.5%] .31 = 3. Chapter 10 177 .78 Hence.2 σ . However.099 In control since all points are within these limits.14 80. .10 = 3. if workers do the charting on the line.005 (litres) Mean 2.009 litres 5 LCL is 2. off) the x chart is not applicable and p chart should be used.5 25 z-scale 16 2.14 D3 = 0.0124 or 1.45) = .0062) = .0 litres σ = .24 and LCL is 2.01 = 1.5 2(.48 80.14 Instructor’s Manual.0062 µ = 24.4 to 24. to 25 kg.01 UCL is 2. Sample 1 2 3 Mean 79. Yes. we would simply record whether the item is conforming or not conforming.06.45) A2 = 0. UCL is 3. 24 +.1 ± .

9 Range Chart: UCL = D4= 2.4 1.009 LCL = D3= 0(1.11(1.7 2.38 79.02 80.] 178 Operations Management. 2/ce .90) = 0 [Both charts suggest that the process is in control: Neither has any points outside the limits.4 5 6 79.90) = 4.60 80.96 1.0 1.

process is in control.80 3.00 15.60 3.80 5.00 12.50 16.70 15. 6.20 14.60 17.60 90.30 8.20 4.50 88.92 All moving ranges fall within above limits Therefore.11 All moving ranges fall within above limits Therefore.70 85.60 87.50 4.20 0.10 14. process is in control.60 87.90 3.80 92.80 Octane rating 16.80 1.40 91.10 85.20 86.20 16. Instructor’s Manual.42 0 4.00 14.91 97.90 1.60 16.10 5.73 10. Chapter 10 179 .70 0.20 1.60 2.90 82.80 1.20 85.29 0 1.60 3.60 1.50 19.80 13.40 3.90 14.00 91.40 91.30 87.90 0.70 2.40 17.30 1.30 1.80 6.83 All observations fall within above limits avg moving range= UCLmr= LCLmr= 13.80 17.80 13.30 85.Solutions (continued) Embedded Excel Worksheet 5.50 14.50 1.80 90.23 1.80 14.80 15.40 1. obs # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Octane rating 89.50 90.40 15.70 6.20 0.70 avg= std dev= UCLx= LCLx= 88.20 0.90 13.10 1.56 2.70 Moving Range 2.74 All observations fall within above limits avg moving range= UCLmr= LCLmr= 6.80 2.20 16.50 2.20 13.29 79.90 3.20 1.70 14.60 2.20 2.20 3. obs # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 avg= std dev= UCLx= LCLx= 15.00 89.00 13.90 2.40 6.70 1.90 1.70 5.60 1.50 18.50 Moving Range 2.50 92.

Sample 10 is too large.010 = . 2 defectives = . All values are within the limits.011) = .g. = 2(. 1 2 3 4 4 12 5 9 = .857 14 21 = 1.025 ± .0234 and LCL is 0 (because it can't be negative). mean = .001 to . should be changed to 0. No.025 c. 1 defective = . Omitting that value and recomputing 18 limits with = = .0075 yields 12(200) UCL = .01 + 0. g. 10.Solutions (continued) 7..5 ± 3. dev.0197 and LCL = 0.0099 200 h.0138 Thus.025 + 0. LCL becomes 0.0096 13( 200) = .0122 = . the fraction represented by each data point is half the amount shown.97 z = 2. n = 200 a.024 = .011 n 200 d. f.67 UCL is 5.049.857 ± 8.020 = .0228 in each tail.025 = . Since n = 200. e.025 + z(. .9904) 200 = .045 200 200 200 200 b.02(.0002 to .02 .0096 ± 2 .17(0.011) = .0075 + .266. = 180 Operations Management. Yes. LCL. all sample proportions in part (a) fall within these control limits.0096(. E.02 ± 2(. = 110 = 7.0096 ± . 9.17.03 confidence = . UCL is .045)/4 = 0. etc. = = .025(.025 ± 2.005. alpha 8.0456. α = 0.01.0099) = 0. the last sample is beyond the upper limit. = = = .047 Solving.02 + 0. Control Limits: ± 3 = 1.0228) = . . 2/ce .975) Std. dev. z = 2. p (1 − p ) n = 200 Control Limits = p ± 2 n p= 25 =. leaving .0399.409 UCL is 16. All numbers of daily compaints are within the limits.98) Std. if negative. Hence.5 14 Control Limits: ± 3 = 7. (0.17 . mean = .025 p (1 − p ) .

) .098 LCL = .58 n 5 σ≈ A2R = (.119 6 So UCL is 3. per piece: 15.Solutions (continued) 11. LCL is 3.054 ± . b.82) No.054(. Out of the 30 observations. ∑x = 150. or control limits must be converted to number of defectives. In the latter case.15 = 3. Chapter 10 181 .146 = 3.15. Sample 29 is outside the UCL.044. . the upper control limit would be 9. Instructor’s Manual. A2 = .01 Note that observations must be converted to fraction defective.73. Even though all points are within these limits. not just a sample of 30. (2) Compute the value of the upper control limit at the start: 15 +6 .004 cm. the process error rate can be shown statistically to be different from 4% error rate because 5. total number of defectives 87 = = . Hence.06 cm.2cm. = There are several slightly different ways to solve this problem.06cm. a. so the process is not in control.85. given that the upper limit increases by .054 Total number of observations 16(100) (1 . .8 defectives and the lower control limit would be 1 defective.96 n 100 = . it seems that the tolerances are being met: approximately 97 percent of the output will be acceptable. It is best to use C P Index because it is based on population. (3) Determine how many pieces can be produced before the upper control limit just touches the upper tolerance.97. UCL = . [This case is essentially the one portrayed in the text in Figure 10-11A.85 ± . a.4% is too far from 4% given 1600 observations. or 3. part (a) and (b) give different results.385 ± 2 Control limits are x ± 2 n 39 . = 1. The most straightforward seems to be the following: (1) Observe that the upper control limit is six standard deviations above the lower control limit.01 1 =15.004 cm.054 ± 1.82 3 3 max spec − min spec 81 − 78 CP = = = .61 < 1 => not capable 6σ 6(. only one value exceeds the tolerances.90 from problem 4.] Thus. σ = . 39 σ = .58)(1. 12.90) = .146 n=6 x= 14./piece 13.946) Control limits are ± z = . = 35 pieces.3%.

.g.192/ 5 = .001 0.35 − 9. i.5 4. Two observations have values above the specified limits.253) One should reduce the process variability. g.242 to 4.86 Solving.5 ± 3(. dev.258 = 4. f.192 using Excel mean = 4.5 4. e.01 = 3.0026.06 = 3. It is necessary to see if the process variability is within 9.68575 All ranges are within the limits.5 + z(.0. 3. c.325) = 4. = (.6 0.4 + .00 0. (of data set) = .0013) = .325) = 0 to .0 Cm 3 sigma 3 sigma (i) The upper control limit is 6 standard deviations above the lower control limits.3 + 4. so the risk is close to zero. 1 (iii) Determine how many pieces can be produced before the LCL just crosses the lower tolerance of 3 Cm.44 . 10% of the 20 observations fall outside the limits.35.58 ± A2= 4.325 n=5 Means: A2 = 0.3 4.73)(. the LCL = 3.253 3 3 max spec − min spec 10.3115 to 4.Solutions (continued) 15. and the last mean is above the upper limit. 182 Operations Management.4)/4 = . z = 4.5 Cm UCL 3.5 .5 + 4.7 = (4. Ranges: D3 = 0 0 to 2. None.65 CP = = = .96 and 10. dev.2 + . e.52) = .086) = 4.11(.6885. = . using experimental design or use more accurate machines. 3.5.5 std. 2/ce .5 + 4. a. n 4 σ≈ A 2 R from (10-4) = (..3.5 Cm. 17.001 1 16.01 cm LCL 3.5 ± . b.44 Mean n=1 σ = 0.5 .758 The risk is 2(. std.3 + . The first mean is below the lowest limit.19.44 440 = = = 440 pieces 0.7)/4 = 4.58(. 1 2 3 4 4.e. (ii) When UCL = 3.46 < 1 => process is not capable 6σ 6(.086 4. 4.5 ± 0. d.44 Cm.086) = 4.

Solutions (continued) h.9 More 4.02 = = = 1.3 mean= std dev= 4. (If 1.8 4.05 0.4 4.05 0.) 19. 0.7 4.2 4. i.000 1.04 .4 4.15 0.18 = 4.33 were used. Two different measures of dispersion are being used. a.5 0. 0.3 4.02.5 4.03 cm.600 1. In this instance. and the process distribution is not quite Normal.6 4.18 0.4 4.02 = .8 4. Machine Standard Deviation (cm) Job Specification (±cm) 001 002 003 004 005 20.02 . the index is 1.3 4.003) .8 4.4 4.081 Instructor’s Manual. tolerance = (0.084 D 10 0. The last sample mean is above the upper limit.7 4.5 4.6 4. 5 Embedded Excel Worksheet 4.6 4.833 0.3 4.018 b.013 1.988 Capable ? No No No Yes Yes Machine Cost per unit ($) Standard Deviation (mm.04) cm.003 cm.6 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.64.04 Cp 0.9 18.241 = 4.6 4.01 0.5 4.6 4. the process would not be capable.02 0.07 0.) A 20 0. the standard deviation and the range.10 0.080 C 11 0.2 4. In order to be capable.333 Cp 1.11 p process width 6(. C = specification width .11.7 4.4 ± .079 B 12 0. Chapter 10 183 .9 Frequency 0 2 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 0 4. 4.191943 Bin 4.2 4.000 0. Process mean = 0.3 4.4 ± 3 0. σ = 0..04 0.5 4.952 0. the process capability ratio must be at least 1.00.7 4.4 4.16 to 4. so the process is capable.1 4.5 4.583 0.

0. the process is capable.1 − 18.0. 21. the process is capable.5 = = 1. not capable For process K: X − LSL 33 − 30 = = 1.33. 184 Operations Management.04} = .0. X = Process mean. 1.9375 3σ (3)(.5 − 16. σ = Process standard deviation For process H: X − LSL 15 − 14.00.32) Cpk = min { .Solutions (continued) You can narrow the choice to machines A and B because they are the only ones with a capability ratio of at least 1. For process T: X − LSL 18.9375 . LSL = Lower Specification Limit.9375.0 3σ (3)(1) USL − X 36.06 Since 1. 1.04 3σ (3)(.1 = = .5 = = 1. You would need to know if the slight additional capability of machine A is worth an extra cost of $8 per unit.06 > 1.17 > 1.9375 < 1.0.06 3σ (3)(0.17} = 1. Let USL = Upper Specification Limit.32) USL − X 16 − 15 = = 1.17 3σ (3)(1) C pk = min{1.5) USL − X 20.33 3σ (3)(0.0 Since 1.5) C pk = min{1.5 − 33 = = 1. 2/ce .06} = 1. 1.

and then CPK will equal CP because max spec − process mean process mean − min spec 1 max spec − min spec = = CPK = ÷ = CP.78 3σ (3)(3) Since . 23. σ = Process standard deviation. Armand is not capable.5 min .5) Since 1.0 3σ (3)(2. σ Armand = 3 min .78 < 1. For Armand: C pk = USL − X 45 − 38 = = . USL − X 45 − 37. Melissa is capable. USL − X 45 − 37 = = 1.07 3σ (3)(2. Jerry is most capable.. No. For Jerry: C pk = For Melissa: C pk = Instructor’s Manual.0 ≤ 1.0.22. Chapter 10 185 ..5) Since 1. Jerry is capable.0.5 = = 1.07 > 1. σ Melissa = 2.5 min .5 min . 3σ 3σ 2 3σ Therefore CPK ≤ CP.. X Melissa = 37. Let USL = Upper Specification Limit X = Process mean.0. USL = 45 minutes. σ Jerry = 2. X Armand = 38 min . the maximum value of CPK occurs when the process mean is centred in the specification range. X Jerry = 37 min .

10 0.10 2 0.55 0.4 0. dev.40 0.49 0. 0.10 7 0.= 0.10 3 0.7 0.3 0.20 4 0.6 0.4 0.45) cc Cpk = 3.43 0.00 Range chart 0.15 avg.5 Sample mean: 0.5 0.8 More 0.1.55 7 0.20 0.10 8 Frequency Freq.6 Bin 0.4 4 0.55 0.4 0.55 0.55 0.7 0.52 0.6 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 186 Operations Management.65 0.4 0.60 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.55 Sample Range: 0.4 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Range control chart: UCL = 0.40 0.7 0.63 LCL = 0.3 0. a.55 Process mean = 0.5 0.80 0.30 0.40 0.3 0.45 0.5 0. Bin 0.35 LCL = 0.55 0.35 0.4 0.35 3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 5 0.3 0.20 0.40 0.55 0.4 0.10 5 0.7 0.6 0.65 0.Solutions (continued) Embedded Excel Worksheet 24.18 >1 Capable b.35 Mean chart 0.45 0.4 0. Stroh Brewery Sample 1 0. Sample 1 0.45 0.45 0.49 Process stan.50 0.8 6 4 2 0 0.8 More 1 5 7 6 2 0 0 Tolerance = (0.5 0.60 0.20 6 0.6 0.55 0.4 0.5 0.45 0.5 2 0. 2/ce .45 6 0.6 0.3 0.14 = grand mean = average range Sample Mean control chart: UCL = 0.

A 2 = .50 1. Manufacturing needs to place greater emphasis on preventive quality management/control (e. Cutting cost in design and product development may not be beneficial to the company in the long run. Using Equation 10.5 Sample mean: 0.55 0.5 0.g. The company may want to consider investing more in R&D. use of control charts) rather than inspecting already completed parts. Chapter 10 187 .20 Time period 4 0.4 0. it needs to continue to design products of high quality that fulfils the needs of the market place.6 0.00 0.Solutions (continued) Embedded Excel Worksheet c. Sample 1 0. Case: Tiger Tools Answers to Questions: 1.4.40 0.65 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In control Case: Toys Inc.55 0. while appeasing customers in the short run. The trade-in and repair program.18.55 Sample Range: 0.7 0.35 0.14 = average rang e Mean chart 2.5 0.55 0.40 0. 1.15 avg.55 0.4 0.60 0.10 3 0.10 5 0. From Table 10-2 . 100% inspection may be too expensive.43 0. 2.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Out of control Range chart 0.3 0.4 0.45 0.10 0.45 0.873.50 0.4 0. may be too costly and will not be correcting the root cause of the problem. A consultant must consider the long-term implications of decisions suggested.20 6 0.40 0.50 0..10 2 0.6 0.49 = grand m ean 0.00 1. 0.55 0. for n = 20.52 0.10 7 0. Since the company thrives on its reputation of high quality products.30 0. 3. For the first data set = .5 0.45 0. the estimated standard deviation is: Instructor’s Manual.20 0.

234 3 3 1. 188 Operations Management. 6(.σ≈ n 20 A2R = (. as indicated by the plot of the smaller sample size below.234) 2.401) σ≈ 2 n= 5 = . For the second data set. The cause for this should be investigated and fixed.58(.873) = . = . Performing the same calculations as in #1. the process is capable.153.18)(. From Table 10-2 . we obtain an estimated standard deviation of: A R .00. For n = 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2 4 6 8 10 12 Sample number 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Even though process is capable. and therefore resulted in a large estimate for σ.173) The process capability is The process seems to be cycling.20 = . it is not in control (because of the wave-like pattern of the average lengths of prybars).2 The process capability is = 1.173 3 3 1. Because this is more than 1. Because this is less than 1.854.58. the process is not capable 6(.00. 2/ce . A2=.401. Taking large samples probably resulted in combining the results of several different process means.

smell. is free of any impurities or most bacteria. . Quality for Canadian Springs means that the product. regular hourly quality tests are performed on the water in the holding tanks. Chapter 10 189 . big Holding bins Conveyor belt Semi-trailers of potatoes Sort small Washing Skinning Inspection for rotten potatoes Chippers Holding bins Bagging Scales Laser check (opti-sort scanner) for dark spots. Finally. the returned bottles are cleaned and sterilized. and colour should be acceptable. the water's taste. Returned bottles Visual Inspection Plant Holding tanks Cleansing & Sterilization Conveyor belt aquifer Tanker trucks Carbon filters & . In addition. flavoured Instructor’s Manual. By using sanitized tanker trucks and equipment in the plants. holes Broken chips fall through Inspection for burnt chips Cooking in corn oil. Canadian Springs draws the water from closed aquifers that have almost pure water. Also. and bottled water is kept for up to 30 days and tested to see how the water keeps over time. water goes through filteration processes. contamination of water is kept to a minimum. salted. circulated. Case: In the Chips at Jays Answers to Questions: 1.Case: Canadian Springs Answers to Questions: 1. . Also. water. membranes Spring water Filling Capping Reverse Osmosis Premium water Holding tanks 2.

potatoes). not burnt. be pure (without skin).e. Chips should taste good (i. be whole (not broken). burnt and broken ones are separated too. and inspected to remove the rotten ones. and consistently flavoured.2. not rotten.. the oil and flavours are circulated to provide consistency. 2/ce . After cooking. While frying. North Dakota potatoes are purchased. good quality. 190 Operations Management. First. from good-tasting. then washed and skinned.

- A Guide to Control ChartsUploaded byAnonymous utfuIcn
- X-bar R chartUploaded byShanmugam Balasubramaniam
- Statistical process quality control chartsUploaded byRavi Kumar G
- Six Sigma - Chapter 5 (1)Uploaded byFatmah
- Speech by W E DemingUploaded bydskymaximus
- SSGB Question Paper 21 June 15 DelhiUploaded bykapindra
- Poloroid ReportUploaded byKevin Renell
- The_Book_of_SPCUploaded bymititicu
- Handling of OOTUploaded byjameer80
- Quality ControlUploaded byEuniceChung
- 7 Qc Tools BhelUploaded byAsad Bin Ala Qatari
- Grade ControlUploaded byvanpato
- Statistics in IndiaUploaded bypedda60
- System of Limits, Fits and tolerancing.pptxUploaded byAbhishek Dhiman
- Evaluating Drug Literature a Statistical Approach PDFUploaded byJonathan
- Limits and ToleranceUploaded bySiddharth Singh
- tolerance.pdfUploaded byShaikh Mohd Qaisar
- Mark Wilson-Constructing Measures_ an Item Response Modeling Approach-Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2005)Uploaded byGunaOneCoganKrui
- Md. Imrul Kaes - Six Sigma 2013-4-20Uploaded byImrul Kaes Likhon
- 58235646-LimitsUploaded byRakesh Yadav
- Household Gasoline Demand in CanadaUploaded bykeilerkeiler
- LTV Impact EstimationUploaded byAbdullah Ansari
- Tolerances FitsUploaded bysandeep5
- BCTRWUploaded byYan Estonio
- ANSI B4.1-1967 Preferred Limits and Fits for Cylindrical PartsUploaded bygiaphongn
- Math G7_Probability and StatisticsUploaded byLeigh Yah

- Wp Healthcare2Uploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- CHF Brochure 160910Uploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- 21249316-Project-report-on-Motivation-HR.docUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- The Service Concept the Missing Link in Service Design ResearchUploaded bydarkennimbus
- 10.1.1.199.5695.pdfUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- Logistics and Supply Chain Management in the Hotel Industry- ImpaUploaded bySomnath Manna
- EDNHSP150413.pdfUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- 24305562-Titan-STP.docxUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- Mahindra Deming AwardUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- export importUploaded bySazz Islam
- 20 Ratio AnalysisUploaded byMonna Kiaw
- tomato ketchup.docUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- The Service Concept the Missing Link in Service Design ResearchUploaded bydarkennimbus
- admmUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal
- Pricing ManagementUploaded byHarshi Aggarwal

- FilePages From 19. Limits and FitsUploaded byjeevapra
- WF5 Config OptionsUploaded byCADTDD
- Delivering Solution for TurnoutUploaded byRaden Dwinanto
- Maintenance Strategy in SAP-PMUploaded bySrinivasa Sastry N
- C-RHP-SPUploaded byedgar_glezav
- 7.5-01-01-01Uploaded byKathleen Valdez
- ASTM A108 StandardUploaded byDang Tuan Duong
- Chapter Eight Tolerance Charts.pptxUploaded byslitant
- 52902320-AC-UPS-SizingUploaded byPeanut d. Destroyer
- Wirtgen_W150Uploaded byAshraf m ali
- ITSDF B56-11-1-2012-rev-11-05-12Uploaded byFernando Aguilar
- EML2322L Design Report TemplateUploaded byAlexandra Grt
- ALL THAT U NEEDUploaded bySachin5586
- 79656426-BS16-1Uploaded byMuhammad Faizan Tahir
- Baumer Tdp02 Tdpz02 Ds EnUploaded byQamar Zia
- ASTM D570Uploaded byIng Isabel Salazar
- Global TolerancesUploaded bySimbu Arasan
- Brochure 2006 Uvb Mpp en 40 EnUploaded byQuân Đỗ
- Detailing PrintUploaded bySathi Mech
- Tabale de parafusoUploaded bySilas Mendes
- Bentuk, Dimensi Dan Cara Pemasangan Sheet PileUploaded byTeuku Rizki Muda Keulana
- DrawingUploaded byTommyVercetti
- Gate Question paper with solution -Madeeasy-set-1Uploaded byHemant Kuralkar
- Achieving 6 Sigma Quality in Medical Device Manufacturing by Use of DoE and SPC (1)Uploaded byispam28
- Surface Finish DMIS SIRUploaded byPawan Kumar
- A519Uploaded byAleksei Avila
- is.iso.7452.2002Uploaded byKetan Vala
- 93C66Uploaded byhema92nth
- Me Troll OgyUploaded bysushil.vgi
- Cqe Sample ExamUploaded byAlireza Radfarma