Understanding Special Cause LO4810

ToCOLLABR8@aol.com
Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:46:39 -0500

In follow-up to my original post LO4508:

I have carefully read all of the posts that followed the subject
"Understanding Special Causes" I have also received some very helpful
e-mail from several individuals. I did not reply to any particular
response as I wanted to contemplate the diverse range of answers (and
questions) raised.

All of this has led me down an entirely different path than when I posted
my original idea for the problem. I now realize that what is missing is a
measurement process of any kind. I believe there is a way to capture, in
measurable terms, that which I have observed over the years with regards
to proficiency. I'm also certain that by involving other users and
systems experts we can surface a list of proficiencies that might be a
good starting point.

This raises another series of thoughts. In my opinion, there are two
different areas of proficiency that need to be focused on. One is the set
of proficiencies required to run the complex computer system that
generates the math data design. The other is a set of proficiencies
related to design expertise itself, something that takes years to
develope. If each of these areas are made measurable then we will have
the ability to achieve statistical control. Until then, there is no basis
to claim that a special cause is in effect. Does this make any sense to
those more familiar with Deming principles?

Again, I would like to thank all those who have taken the time to respond
through this list and through e-mail. All of the resources I have been
led to have helped enhance my understanding.

--
Diane M. Korzeniewski
ToCOLLABR8@aol.com