Відео

Glad you liked it, and happy to have helped sharpen your thought process. If there's a related question or topic suggestion for a next video, don't hesitate to ask 😉

@@TomMentink thank you Tom. Hope to see more of your videos. Just wondered if you have any tips for revealing unrealized problems within new potential customers? Some of our clients require us to explore new markets even. I use 5 whys but it’s time consuming and feels like finding a needle in the haystack..

@@taishihasegawa8380 the first thing I would go to is FMEA - failure mode & effect analysis. That tool doesn’t go as deep as 5 why’s and is much more useful for identifying potential problems and summarising process know-how. I don’t have a video on it myself, so it’s probably time to make one 😉

Thanks@@019danielalejandro, for taking the time to share that. Over the years, I’ve covered a bunch of topics already, but there’s always more questions - so if you have a topic question or video request, don’t hesitate to ask

@@thomasgoetz8178 yeah, maybe it’s time to make a new version of that video - I’m not sure it will come out as nice and natural content-wise, but the sound will definitely be better with my new setup. (I tried post editing this video, but that didn’t have the desired effect, unfortunately)

You're very welcome! I'm happy my videos add value for you. If you have related questions or topic suggestions, feel free to ask 😉

My pleasure, happy to hear my videos bring value to our community.

@@rezagh5438 than, you for sharing that feedback. I’m happy to hear you liked it. In the spirit of this video, I should of course ask you for a positive point, an improvement suggestion, something that you loved and some learning or new insight you had 😇 The noise was a thing I notices during editing already something went wrong with the microphone and I tried to make the best of it because the content came out so well… I repost this to LinkedIn as well, but I sort of quit Facebook, Instagram and X, since they take up a lot of time and I’d rather focus on 2 platforms - if you want to share my video links to your network on those platforms, feel free. And remember, video topic requests are always welcome too 😉

@@juanpablogonzalez7000 thanks for sharing that, glad to hear my video is of value to you.

Just to recap: in this context, hard skills are the more technical/analytical skills, while soft skills cover change management, communication and the like (and know that 'soft skills' are just as hard to master as the hard skills 😉). So hard skills important for a strong start as a CI manager are things like: able to analyse operational performance, link performance to financial numbers, performance variation analysis, calculate OEE and its constituents, make a material balance, design a performance and projects follow up meeting structure, guesstimate the operational benefit of an improvement proposal and calculate the expected financial benefit based on that; and also more basic skills like: read a P&L, able to make a 4M fishbone, do a 5 Why, able to set up a KPI tree, organise an A3 problem solving team or Kaizen Event, etc.

Thanks. I'm trying to transition from inventory management and tbh depending on the industry (food and beverage manufacturing) it sounds more like an industrial engineering role. Wearas I see it a Business analysis role with a specialization in lean principles

Yes, that is a nice topic for a future video - thanks for bringing it up. I wonder how this video got you to that idea, but hey, sometimes great ideas just pop up when you're thinking about something that's only half connected...

No; it is a good start, but you don’t need an engineering degree. There’s 2 main streams of competences you need within CI: analytics/engineering & human change management. To be good at the first one, an engineering degree is a good prep, but and MBA is great too, or any technological studies, or even just a mindset of wanting to find out how things work.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I've been involved in inventory management, which translates well to this in my opinion. Analysis, process, change. ​@@TomMentink

@@oladipupoodutayo7080 thank you for those kind words. I have actually seen some of my videos shared on university websites, so some professors do 😊

Hi Danny, good to hear you got that fully up and running - you correctly guessed which company one of my examples came from 😉

@@DONALDTULALIAN my pleasure, happy to hear you like it

Hi Kevin, sorry for the late reaction. In my R&R file, you won’t find the sigma directly. Rather, you’ll see 99% R&R value, which is 5,15 times sigma. So if you divide that by 5,15 you’ll get the sigma value.

The Quality function really benefits from mastering TPM-style tools, which are not per se new, but also not part and parcel of most Quality departments yet. Quality Engineers, like explained in the video, should lead the way in this and expand to include Six Signa tools in their arsenal.

You take either 50-100 individual samples or 30-60 sample subgroups to determine your mean and control limits. These should be collected over a medium time interval - that means don't use consecutive samples, but rather sample across some time, batches and/or operators. My rule of thumb is to sample at the same frequency as your intended control plan or up to twice as frequent. During this time, try to minimise 'corrections' to the settings or process. If you have real process shifts happening during this sampling period, you'll see that the actual mean may not be very relevant, but the SD and control limits will still be useful. In any case, you'll first set temporary control limits while you're removing special causes of variation and improving process stability. Then you repeat the sampling process with a new set of 50-100 / 30-60 samples and calculate your definitive mean and control limits from them.

The concept of One Piece Flow is still very valid - it's a good system, just not as overpoweringly good as many of those animations make it out to be. I would say the main benefit is early detection of problems - if you pull one piece through your entire production process, you'll know if you have the right materials, design and work stations set up, before you commit a whole batch of materials to the first couple of operations. The other benefit is flexibility in production - Work In Progress isn't worth anything (you've committed the materials, but haven't made the thing your customer will pay for), so it's best to finish a product once you start on its materials. With OPF, you'll get to each finished product as soon as possible. You may find, however, that some operations are simply easier to do in small batches. Usually because the setup of a work station takes some time or if an operation can treat a batch of products in basically the same time as a single piece (example of the oven). That's why many companies don't go for literal One Piece Flow, but rather use Small Batch Production. These batches probably should not be larger than the customer's order (unless you're making to stock), but they can definitely be smaller - pick a batch size that still allows for easy handling and transport and also doesn't take up too much time. If you're working on larger stuff (like a motor cycle, or even just an engine or pump) one piece is probably your best batch size, but if your products are small enough that several fit in a box (which won't require a forklift to move 😉) than go up to roughly what you can still move manually and up to what takes a matter of minutes to produce (up to about 30 min maximum for a small batch - shorter is often better for flow).

@@TomMentink Good feedback. We make custom kitchens and builtin furniture. I am a career carpenter but I am self taught regarding cabinetry. It started with just, "can you make a cabinet" (yes), to a small shop (3,000 SF) and 3 other employees besides myself. I created and continue to develop a system and process for building, tracking labor and materials, analyzing the process, bidding and estimating, and, most recently, upgrading to industrial machinery which none of know how to use yet, including a CNC. The point is, Im always researching and exploring new and better ways to do EVERYTHING, and a big part of that is using the internet. But it sometimes surprises me what other people have to say regarding literally everthing, but specifically concerning workflow efficiency, best practices for building, and in general how things should be done. My instincts tell me to find what works best for our specific situation. Learn what I can from other skilled and knowledgable people, but chew the meat, spit out the bones. One challenge of that however, is when you have a tendency to get stuck in analysis paralysis. It kinda comes with the territory of being a bit obsessive over the details. It can make for a good craftsman, but it also can get in the way of production. Regardless, I appreciate your video and feedback. Its quite helpful to hear and see people breakdown things to a level thats easily digestable.

My pleasure, happy you found my video useful

Specifically the stuff I share in this video, probably not really from college (maybe Business Administration). But QA/QC skills can be found in several studies: for food industry, there's a range of Food Technology studies at professional education, college and university levels; similarly automotive employs Automotive Engineers from different education levels; other industries have their own specialised studies. In general, any Technical Business Administration or Engineering studies that are more or less in the field you want to work in will do - your eye for quality, ability to think in processes and general STEM fields will make you successful in the QA/QC field, your specific formal education is mostly your way into the career and there are Quality Managers coming from many different backgrounds and educations.

Thanks for sharing that praise ☺ Providing others the possibility to learn from my experiences and insights is why I started this channel. I'm a firm believer in learning from several sources. So spread the word, let anyone who might benefit from my videos know about them - it'll help them and me both 😉

@TomMentink That is very correct 👏 I will, for sure. Thank you 😊

@@TomMentink Tom, where can I get your email address, Sir?

@@BNT05 it's on the channel page (but won't show on mobile devices for some reason): youtube@tommentink.com

@@lastcactus6854 that’s great to hear - wishing you the very best in your new role! This video specifically is a very strong concept for managing the CI process/programme within our organisation, so take it to heart in this new function 😉

Thanks @@Oekiero for those nice words - it means a lot to be that my work brings value to others. If you’d like to help, spread the word - feel free to send my videos to colleagues and your broader professional network.

@@leratotakalo5997 my pleasure, glad to see you like my video

Happy to see you liked it, thanks for sharing that. If you’d like me to cover a certain topic in a future video, feel free to request 😉

Happy to hear you found value in my videos. Do remember that this is only my view on it, and it would serve you well to check out multiple viewpoints to make your own style.

That depends on what you're averaging - if you take the beginning + end of one run and use the average of those two to say something about that run; that's subgroup size 2. If you adjust the process based on each individual sample; that's subgroup size 1. Subgroup size 15 would be if you average all begin samples over a month and use them to steer the process after that month, not super likely to be used for process control, but that's how you'd get to such a sample size.

@@TomMentink Hi Tom, Thanks again for the response, i can see your point for having either a subgroup size of 1 or 2., would this also depend if there is variation in your process whether you choice subgroup size of 1 or 2?

​@@deanopenn you can use a larger sample size to get a better measurement of process centreline, so yes: if you've got more variation in your process, use a larger sample size. It can also depend mainly on process setup - if you've got two lanes producing the same product, you'll have to decide on if and how you'd want to spot any difference between those lanes. If you're mostly interested in the general process shifts, lob them together (do check for the spread between both samples in the subgroup when using this for process control). This is especially useful if you've got a structural difference between the lanes that you can't fix (for now). So one of the things for you to consider: is averaging the begin and end sample a better predictor for the whole batch than just the begin? If there's no significant difference between begin and end samples (do a paired t-test), then averaging becomes less useful (can still be used with high variance). You might get better practical benefit from just using the begin of each run, so that you can still steer the process when needed.

@@TomMentink great response as usual. its on one process, same tool etc. ii have done a Test on the 2 data sets measurement 1 and 2 (Beginning and end of the run), using 2-Sample t. the P value is 0.770 which indicates indicates the null hypothesis is true.

@@deanopenn so you don't have to use both values due to having to average a mean value over the whole run - then it's up to you to decide if the variation between samples is so high that you'd rather average out the two samples into one sample subgroup (statistically, that brings you 1,4 times closer to the actual process centreline, but it will make your calculations a bit more involved and you'll only be able to react after the run is already finished)

Absolutely - that's how to use the Fishbone effectively in the whole RCA process.

My pleasure Karin, and happy to hear you liked it. Still working on that Early Product and/or Early Equipment management overview - they will also get their video at some point, but haven't yet condensed my thinking on them enough to make for an interesting explanation ☺

When Cpk is good, but Ppk is not fully up to your demands (Ppk 1.67 is pretty high, mind you), that means your process' average is shifting over time. Maybe there are large and unpredictable differences between material batches, which influences your process outcome, but most other factors should be controllable (not per se easy to control, but that's what you should work on). In a more recent video, I also explained why I think that for many industries, Cmk >1,67 Cpk >1,33 and Ppk >1,00 is sufficient. You might want to up all of them by 0,33 for more demanding customers, but the tolerances you place on your system do indeed seem very strict. ua-cam.com/video/Fi6WPCgwhpg/v-deo.html

Hi Tom to add to this, after work has been done to optimize factors that can cause variation and you still cant achieve PP or PPK (desired target). what are your thoughts? its up to the customer to then decide whether to except this based on the fact any more improvements would be costly e.g. new tooling etc

@@deanopenn if your Cmk and Cpk are good, but Ppk is mediocre, that should be solvable: it means that there area significant differences between batches and/or operators - focus on those effects. If your Cpk is already not fully as you'd like it, then going to your customer to renegotiate their expectations is a real option. In the longer run, you'd do better improving your processes (maybe also do a DOE to determine the most stable process parameters, further standardise operating procedures and skill levels, etc.), but isn't always achievable in the short term. And indeed, some customers just ask too much, perhaps even unrealistically high Ppk's for the current state of technology. You could even go as far as to buy and test a some product by your competition, to assess if they are able to produce at those tight tolerances - if they can, you know you have to catch up, if they also can't it really may be in your customer's expectations.

@@TomMentink thanks Tom, you always answer swiftly and in depth

i knew something would come to my head after i commented haha. in regards to CMK i know you should take consecutive pieces, if the process lets say is a coil of wire and the only time you can get a sample piece is when the coil is full e.g. 500m, how would you go about this scenario? you are looking for the coil diameter for an example

Happy to hear that you liked the video, hope it will help you understand Process Capability better and allow you to effectively use it in practice.

Yes, Cmk is just the start - if it's good, then you continue with Cpk (and maybe Ppk). Cmk is not enough for PPAP, because it doesn't tell you much about the final variation the customer is getting. For this, you'd need at least Cpk, which is a good indication of variation within each of your batches, or Ppk, which describes the longer term variation also when your customer gets different batches from you (any probably assumes that they will all be the same). 50 consecutive pieces is a subgroup size of 50, but that doesn't figure into Cmk calculations - just calculate standard deviation directly over sample sizes larger than 8 (no need to use SD estimation tables based on subgroup size).

@@TomMentink Hi Tom, thanks for the detailed explanation. In response to what you have said above. i thought if you collected x50 pcs off a run (1 part after another), then this would be classed as a subgroup size of 1 and then if you done the same an hour later (collected another x50 pcs) that would then be subgroup 2 or have i misunderstood would you have said

@@deanopenn these 50 pieces would make up 1 subgroup of size 50. Subgroup size means how many pieces/parts are within 1 sample. And again - when calculating Cmk, don't worry about subgroups, since there is just one large sample (of 30+ pieces), this has nothing to do with how many pieces you'll put into each sample subgroup for later tests.

Happy to see you liked it, hope it will help you in your professional journey.

Great to hear you enjoy this and other videos I made, thanks for sharing that. And yes, it is super important to lead the way in 5S by managers organising their own offices, but it can also be a great way to discuss processes, waste, material and information flows, etc.

The most common reason for this difference is that the averages of the samples vary quite a bit over time as well. So the short term variance (as seen inside each sample group) is pretty small, but centreline of your whole process is shifting between samples. This method of averaging variances assumes that the centreline of the process is stable. When calculating the SD over the whole set of all individual measurements, this change will affect the result. In general, you'd prefer to use the direct calculation of SD for describing the process. Using subgroup SD's is used for process control (where you are interested in spotting that shift of the centreline more than saying something about the whole production run). For reference: the effect you observed is very similar to something in Process Capability: when you see a higher Cpk than Ppk, this shifting centreline is also what's happening. By the way: sometimes (quite rare) you'll see a lower SD from direct calculation (or a higher Ppk than Cpk), that's when the subgroup averages are very similar (more similar than you'd estimate based on the subgroup SD's). But that's a bit of an edge case,, so more for interest than practical use.

@@TomMentink Thank you so much!

Haha, so recognisable. So take up the challenge - clean that thing out and unscrew it from you desk - your legs will also thank you for the extra space.

Happy you like the video and the template, I hope you get great use out of it. I know, maybe I should set up a small store of useful templates, but I'd also be happy if people like and share the videos and maybe purchase one of my courses from time to time - that allows me to keep providing free content for the whole community.

Thanks for sharing that and glad to see you're enjoying many of my videos ☺