Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Question to Outline

Discussion in 'Documentation Control, Procedures, Templates,...' started by essegn, Oct 17, 2016.

  1. essegn

    essegn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Dear Sirs,

    I write a Six Sigma Study, but i have a problem to do make an Outline.

    1. Introduction
    2. Methology
    2.1 Define
    2.2 Measurement
    2.3 Analysis
    2.4 Improvement
    2.5 Control
    3. Conclusion
    4. References

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I made an improvement with measurement equipment.
    So should it be written like following?

    2.2.1 Define
    2.2.2 Measure
    2.2.3 Analysis
    2.2.4 Improvement
    2.2.5 Control
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I made an improvement in a process.
    Then I measured the process, it was much better but still not good enough.

    2.3.1 Analysis
    2.3.2 Improvement

    Then I made another improvement.
    The process was after the improvement measured and was better like before.

    2.3 Analysis
    2.4 Improvement
    2.5 Control

    It seems to me bad, because 2.3. is behind 2.3.1.

    Could somebody help me out how to figure it out?
    Or it would be better to join results from both improvements into a one?

    Thank you in advance

    Peter
     
  2. normzone

    normzone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    137
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    27
    I can't be of any help with this, [Peter], but I think I'll bump up the magnification on my display.

    I saw your post title in the sidebar and I thought it said " Question to outlive " ... I thought " Wow, that's got to be one heckuva question ! "
     
  3. essegn

    essegn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Or it should be like that:

    1. Introduction
    2. Methology
    2.1 Define
    2.2 Measurement
    2.2.1 Define (MSA)
    2.2.2 Measure (MSA)
    2.2.3 Analysis (MSA)
    2.2.4 Improvement (MSA)
    2.2.5 Control (MSA)

    2.3 Analysis - TEST 1
    2.4 Improvement - TEST 1
    2.5 Analysis - TEST 2
    2.6 Improvement - TEST 2
    2.7 Control
    3. Conclusion
    4. References

    Thank you in advance.

    Peter
     
  4. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    979
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Would it be correct to say that you followed DMAIC...made some adjustments...ran DMAIC again...made some improvements...ran DMAIC for a third time?

    Personally, I think I would be a bit confused while reading your Six Sigma Story. If my first statement was correct, I would suggest using Section 2 to describe the DMAIC steps and the actions that you took, including the re-testing.

    Then I'd have:

    3. INITIAL RUN
    • 3.1 D...
    • 3.2 M...
    • 3.3 A...
    • 3.4 I...
    • 3.5 C...

    4. TEST 1
    • 4.1 D...
    • 4.2 M...
    • 4.3 A...
    • 4.4 I...
    • 4.5 C...

    5. TEST 2
    • 5.1 D...
    • 5.2 M...
    • 5.3 A...
    • 5.4 I...
    • 5.5 C...
    6. CONCLUSION
    7. REFERENCES

    That said, if you have to stick to the numbering system of 1-4 in your original post, I would put a table into section with column headers of INITIAL RUN, TEST 1, TEST 2
     
    essegn likes this.

Share This Page