Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
articles:understanding_quality_kpis_and_objectives [2023/05/25 17:52] – [KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)] rrandallarticles:understanding_quality_kpis_and_objectives [2023/05/25 18:01] (current) – [Common KPIs and Quality Objectives] rrandall
Line 129: Line 129:
 While I would ordinarily caution "//Beware the sirens call to mediocrity//", in a strange twist, the [[articles:ocap|OCAP]] (required for all AS91xx companies) actually promotes mediocrity by linking the company's performance to a "risk factor" - used to determine whether the company is a High, Medium, or Low risk! This discourages the use of "//stretch goals//" because the [[articles:ocap|OCAP]] will "punish" these companies with a 'High" risk rating (which is used to adjust the audit time by ±10%). While I would ordinarily caution "//Beware the sirens call to mediocrity//", in a strange twist, the [[articles:ocap|OCAP]] (required for all AS91xx companies) actually promotes mediocrity by linking the company's performance to a "risk factor" - used to determine whether the company is a High, Medium, or Low risk! This discourages the use of "//stretch goals//" because the [[articles:ocap|OCAP]] will "punish" these companies with a 'High" risk rating (which is used to adjust the audit time by ±10%).
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 +
 +While your "true" goal will often be 100% compliance... these goals are established for "certification" purposes. If you don't know the difference, read: [[articles:qms_vs_iso9001_cert_mgmnt_system|"How a QMS is different from a "Certified Management System"]]
  
 To put the suggested goals/targets in perspective: 99.80% is approx. 4.38 Sigma Short Term (Z<sub>ST</sub>) – or 2,000 DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities). That is the average % products delivered “defect-free” from a “typical” machining “Job Shop” (producing high variation, low volume lots at inconsistent rates). To put the suggested goals/targets in perspective: 99.80% is approx. 4.38 Sigma Short Term (Z<sub>ST</sub>) – or 2,000 DPMO (Defects Per Million Opportunities). That is the average % products delivered “defect-free” from a “typical” machining “Job Shop” (producing high variation, low volume lots at inconsistent rates).
Line 135: Line 137:
  
 ^  Process  ^  KPI  ^  Suggested \\  Goal / Target  ^ ^  Process  ^  KPI  ^  Suggested \\  Goal / Target  ^
-|  Contracts  | Proposals submitted prior to deadline (typically established by the customer)  |  100%  |+|  Contracts  | Proposals submitted prior to deadline (typically established by the customer)  |  98%  |
 |  :::        | Contract / Customer Purchase Order revisions requested after acceptance (due to review errors) |  ≤0.25% of opportunities  | |  :::        | Contract / Customer Purchase Order revisions requested after acceptance (due to review errors) |  ≤0.25% of opportunities  |
-|  Project  | Project Milestones achieved on-time  |  100%  | +|  Project  | Project Milestones achieved on-time  |  98%  | 
-|:::  | Project Deliverables (e.g., [[https://www.smalltofeds.com/2007/07/contract-data-requirements-list-cdrl.html|CDRLs]]) delivered on-time  |  100%  | +|:::  | Project Deliverables (e.g., [[https://www.smalltofeds.com/2007/07/contract-data-requirements-list-cdrl.html|CDRLs]]) delivered on-time  |  98%  | 
-|  Engineering  | Engineering Milestones achieved on-time  |  100%  |+|  Engineering  | Engineering Milestones achieved on-time  |  98%  |
 |:::  | % of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) due to "design” errors (e.g., poor manufacturability)  |  ≤2% of ECOs submitted  | |:::  | % of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) due to "design” errors (e.g., poor manufacturability)  |  ≤2% of ECOs submitted  |
 |:::  | % of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) submitted citing "drawing” errors  |  ≤2% of ECOs submitted  | |:::  | % of ECOs (Engineering Change Order) submitted citing "drawing” errors  |  ≤2% of ECOs submitted  |