Article View: bit.listserv.quality
Article #212Re: Supplier metrics - Objective or subjective
From: Jay Warner
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:00
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:00
63 lines
3467 bytes
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-mailReferences:
<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