This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
I have copy edited the page so that a person without any knowledge of the field will be able to see some internal logic within the syntax. I would humbly suggest that an expert in the field re-read the page to ensure all the accuracy of the concepts which are discussed has been retained. Ideally, it should read with inline citations - as well as increasing verifiability, this would help the reader with further references for further study.
The terms cause and source seemed to be used interchangeably. for consistency, I used 'source' throughout for consistency.
What an interesting page!
Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don;t have time to look at this (or even to read _anything_ here). I would question the intro though as "the least possible waste" - the point about SPC is that it should (for a capable process in an appropriate process field) be possible to reduce this to zero waste. This is important, because it then removes the need for a whole step of post-manufacture inspection.
Obviously such a statement is problematic: WP hates absolutes. It's even difficult to do in commercial manufacturing - SPC fails a lot, and it usually (IMHE) fails because it has been applied well, by competent SPC specialists, to a manufacturing process that just isn't amenable to it. When SPC is applicable (and that's sometimes a hard judgement) then it doesn't deliver "few" defects it does indeed deliver zero defects. However failed SPC is usually because it was applied to a process that just wasn't amenable to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy. Thanks for your comment. I understand what you are saying. If its ok, I'll add that point to the article. Might need a reference added later. Cheers, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Statistical Quality Control" Versus "Statistical Process Control"
I noticed that a search for "Statistical Quality Control" redirects users to SPC instead. I found this quite concerning considering that SQC is recognised as a means of quality appraisal (used to help increase the efficiency of inspection), as opposed to SPC which is used to prevent defects. I can only suggest that SQC not redirect here, but rather to something more relevant such as Lot quality assurance sampling or Quality control. Explanation here.
Application of SPC
New section removed as it is not appropriate here. It is perfectly possible to use a Plan-Do-Check-Act as part of a quality system that also uses SPC, but it is also perfectly intellectually coherent to use SPC without a PDCA cycle. This article should cover what SPC is, not get diverted into one of the many systems in which it can be incorporated. For instance, "Statistical Process control- a practical guide" John S Oakland 1986 offers a 'basic but comprehensive' guide without a single mention of PDCA.
