30,000-foot-level charting consists of two steps. The first step is to determine if the process has a recent region of stability, where this stability region could be six days, six weeks, six months, or six years. If the process does have a recent region of stability, the second step is to describe how the process is performing.
30000-foot-level Predictive Metrics
Predictive process response reporting provides enhancements to traditional report-outs. Making comparisons to past responses on an individual point by point basis can lead to taking in appropriate actions that are not beneficial and may be detrimental.
A 30,000-foot-level report can provide a predictive statement. This form of futuristic reporting can be created for both attribute and continuous responses. Variables data can have either subgrouping or no-subgrouping.
If a 30,000-foot-level futuristic statement is undesirable, something needs to be done to improve the processes.
Integrated Enterprise Excellence Volume III chapters 12 and 13 show the benefits of the 30,000-foot-level measurement reporting approach over traditional metric reporting. IEE Vol III also shows how traditional control charting and process capability statements may not provide the best statement of a process-output performance (and what action or not-action should be taken).
IEE Volume III shows the benefits of 30,000-foot-level reporting over traditional methodologies. The Enterprise Performance Reporting System (EPRS) software provides a means for the easy creation of 30,000-foot-level metric reports.
Enhanced predictive analytics techniques are available through 30,000-foot-level reporting, which is a portion of the Integrated Enterprise Excellence (IEE) business management system.
Once a process is determined to be predictable, the next obvious question is: What is predicted for the metric? To address this in terms of percentage nonconformance, process capability and performance index (Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk), or sigma quality level, a specification is needed. But many metrics don’t have one. To get around this shortcoming, organizations sometimes create targets and analyze them as if they were specifications. But this practice can yield deceptive results because targets are often subjective, and then you may be playing games with these objectives. This article describes a method for reporting and improving process capability and performance when there is no specification.
Many organizations struggle to get their efforts completed on time because of routine “Firefights” keep coming up and taking all the free time away if not delaying currently planned work. No matter how it is addressed, the problems continue to return. In this book excerpt, there is a discussion of the reasons they come back that is related to the methods used to monitor performance to specification. This is an excerpt from his first book in the Integrated Enterprise Excellence four book series.