March 28, 2006
PEUSS assignment and later took up the KBAM module sheets. Most of the asset management practices mentioned in the module are practiced in our company and able to appreciate it. The module notes gave insight on why central utility is held alongwith ISD and why contractors are managed by CU in TVSM. Some of the best systems and practices in TVSM like TPM,ISO,OSHAS,....were explained. Not sure how far will others in the group would understand all these things. But felt that there were few repetitions from the area of Finance, which could be accepted due to the relevance. Spent some time on asset management and need to focus on knowledge management in the next few days. Tomorrow morning we (the team) will have a meeting at the learning grid to decide on which areas to focus on.
CRIP process (Catchball process). I did the summing up on learnings of the exercise and went on well. Later we had a team meeting and decided to go through the KBAM material and meet again on Wednesday to decide further course of action.
March 16, 2006
RBD and its application in this accident. Need to give a try on this. Seminar discussion started with the same few discussion (Gez views on involvement in discussions are acceptable and expected)....came to vague conclusion as we cannot quantify robustness….I differ in this…thats how it would have started for quality….but today we have hundreds of rating systems to do so…If robustness is the future then people will emerge up with quantifying…..Presentations by Graham & Ossie singh gave a feel as if I am sitting in TVSM…..almost all that was stated right from TGR/TGW/top most complaints/approach to the above…everything were similar. During the post discussion the speakers confirmed the teams thoughts during the seminar and they were not sure about the rating ….. comment by ossie singh that reliability and robustness are interchangeable has taken me back…...long tiring day
MTBF to substantiate the life improvement but now some statistical evaluation is possible. Test to improve – fix effectiveness…has its roots on expert judgement…still a doubtful tool as this might be misguided due to the views of one person (more people idea might be confusing ). Testing exercise in the afternoon PAPER CLIP brought out the same issues which I have faced in the company….test results are having too much variation due to test differences,tester differences,test equipment,material…..blah blah. The life was predicted using an extreme accelerated testing (actual usage was 5deg while test was at 105deg), our team should have considered the actual usage first and then started the trials. Moreover we did not make any correlation between a customer usage and the test conducted….may be its just a syndicate exercise and this might not be required. But in a real situation this would have be IMPORTANT. Jane's doubt on assuming the the same trend on the other side of the graph ( measured at 105deg but predicting life at 5deg) was very obvious which did not gain the attention required. In the evening disucussion with TKJ on PPMC….hope will have good dreams.
March 14, 2006
XYZ. The other teams approach was to see robustness from the perspective of various specialist. Towards the end we narrowed down to reliability, safety and input variation ..further discussion to continue tomorrow. PARIS train crash issue heated up in the team … decided to list the various failures which had resulted in the accident and then try to look fo the tools which would have diagnosed the same. Our team came up with an ample number (25) different reasons or failures for that accident. Will have to work out which tool would answer each problem. LOT TO GO. Have to work on PPMC assignment.
March 13, 2006
TVSM, preparing a FTA for engine noise analysis. Though that was a last minute work, very well received by the management and still contining it (I believe…). What ever be the tools and techniques be taught everything required a pre requisite : systems thinking and knowledge about the system. Jones' comment on active and passive components, defining boundaries were quite interesting. But when I did work earlier, everything was taken for granted and expected that the assumptions were understood by all. Binary decision diagram was quite catchy but felt a bit trapped. Took long time to understand. Continuous usage might improve my understanding and identifying application areas.
February 23, 2006
CTQ's impact on to the system level,subsystem level and product level performance was added alonwith the scorecard. FMECA started with lecture session and moved on to the practical session. Lot of confusions in the areas of understanding failure mode,effect,cause,part level,system level,functions,requiremets…and usage over a period of time is surely going to solve this problem. I will have to gain on job experience in the company alongwith some experts…..which might give me a better understanding. It was really a ritual in most of our supplier companies to conduct FMEA…that too once in a year only or only when a new product is launched… Paul rightly mentioned it as the lip service.How do we make the lip service provider a real service provider??? There is were I need to contribute. Good. Need to work on the inmodule work.
DFX followed by the life and reliability distributions lecture ( for me its the nth time), still finding it new, as usual understand at the moment and then later on getting confused. Was able to appreciate and understand the effort put by our company in bath tub curve study and the actions based on that. Afternoon started with eliciting expert judgement by a consultant from Goodrich…its all capturing the knowledge of the experts in relevant areas and using it for product development. It is critical but most of the companies still neglect it and dont visualise the mammoth opportunity loss of not using the expertise. As Vlad was rightly saying the knowledge capture / sharing need to be brought as an obligation of the employees. The seminar on simulation,variation reduction and GD&T was very much useful for a guy like me, who works on the product and not on the production or design side. The few exercises which he gave us tried to keep us on the go. Late in the evening started with the inmodule work and went on till 2200.
February 21, 2006
VOC….was not knowing the importance all these days. A good learning. Rest of the day was all through QFD QFD and QFD. Eventhough I had some exposure to QFD I hadnt any formal training, nor used it in onhand. Felt embarassed to say that our company follows QFD but I dont have enough experience in using it…. but thats true. The overall exercise was very useful but it has so happened that most of the data entered based on assumptions without product knowledge. ( but agree that it is important to understand the concept behind it ). Surely I can contribute in a QFD team with the knowledge acquired.
February 20, 2006
DFSS lies in the fact that DFSS focusses not on the process but on designing the process. Felt sorry about the crazy people when Jane told that there were about 10 to 12 semantics for the DFSS steps. Had a risk assessment of my M.Sc project as a part of learning about the risk management, mostly I found it inline with FMEA methodology and Jane was inline with it. The next two sessions were by Peter brooke on capturing customer requirements. Was interesting to know about the interviews, surveys, data gathering, kano model, VOC….Enojyed the session. Next came the overall most disastrous and boring sessionI have ever attended in WMG, the session on Requirements management & Doors by Keith collyer, it was too compressed that he didnt find enought time to explain fully and as he was grazing throught concepts it was harder to follow him continously. Will be happy if people relook at the content of this session and consider the overall time alocated. Followed by the classroom sessions, our team members met to decide on the internal assessment work. I need to go throught DFx from the book DFSS by crevling. Finished going through the superficial introduction given just now and getting ready for sweet dreams.