🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: bit.listserv.quality
Article #212

Re: Supplier metrics - Objective or subjective

#212
From: Jay Warner
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:00
63 lines
3467 bytes
Daniel J O'Leary wrote:

> Frank Isackson said, "Everything that can be measured or described in
> words can be quantified.
> [snip - sorry 'bout that]
>
> Is it acceptable to rate suppliers using either only subjective data
> or a
> combination
> of subjective and objective data? In other words is any method that
> does
> not rely
> exclusively on objective data a fundamentally flawed method?  [typos
> fixed correctly, I hope]
>
> Dan O'Leary CQA, CQE, CQM, CRE
> Business Process Executive for Manufacturing
> doleary@qbe.picker.com

May I add something to this intersting discussion?

I suppose one could side track into a question of how much measurement
repeatability is necessary before the measurement beocmes subjective,
but that is not the most intersting portion.  (for ex., if you measure a
length to the neareast mm, with a meter stick marked in decimeters, the
last mm is quite subjective.)

The assessment scheme for the Baldrige Award (Wisconsin Forward Award in
my local case) relies upon breaking down the title areas into small
enough pieces that a rational concensus can be reached by examiners.  Is
that concensus subjective or objective?  The question does not compute.
Which way does it lean toward?  When we then add up the points for a
total, does the net result lean toward subjective or objective?

I'm not sure the answer to these 2 questions can tell me anything I
really need to know.  Back to the meter stick measurement example, is
not "subjective" an indication of the precision of the measruemetn, or
more precisely, the reproducibility of it, between observers?  Maybe it
wasn't such a sidetrack.

As for rating suppliers, I think I would prefer reasonably measureable
items, recognizing that total reliance upon measured things that dont'
matter much to my (customer) company operation will lead us down the
"body count" path.  Again.

Maybe we should ask what we intend to do withthe supplier rating.  If it
drops 1%, will we scream and holler and take our business elsewhere?  I
hope not.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph:  (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email:  a2q@execpc.com

Power to the data!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <6rhk81$6hd@newsops.execpc.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <85256663.0072A860.00@ntssmtp.picker.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1159be,fd63cfba739ec595
X-Google-Attributes: gid1159be,public
From: Jay Warner <a2q@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Supplier metrics - Objective or subjective
Date: 1998/08/20
Message-ID: <6rhk81$6hd@newsops.execpc.com>
X-Deja-AN: 384330524
Sender: TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries Discussion List <QUALITY%PUCC.BITNET@vtbit.cc.vt.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU                              *
References: <85256663.0072A860.00@ntssmtp.picker.com>
Comments: ********************************************************
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Approved-By: "Bill Casti (System Admin)" <help@QUALITY.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
X-Received: (from news@localhost) by daily-bugle.newsops.execpc.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA07621; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:52:17 -0500 (CDT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com
X-Trace: daily-bugle.newsops.execpc.com 903631937 6701 (None) 207.250.155.218
Organization: Warner Consulting, inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: a2q@execpc.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.quality