English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Oosterhuis and Coskun recently proposed a new model for applying the Six Sigma concept to laboratory measurement processes. In criticizing the conventional Six Sigma model, the authors misinterpret the industrial basis for Six Sigma and mixup the Six Sigma “counting methodology” with the “variation methodology”, thus many later attributions, conclusions, and recommendations are also mistaken. Although the authors attempt to justify the new model based on industrial principles, they ignore the fundamental relationship between Six Sigma and the process capability indices. The proposed model, the Sigma Metric is calculated as the ratio CV I /CV A , where CV I  is individual biological variation and CV A  is the observed analytical imprecision. This new metric does not take bias into account, which is a major limitation for application to laboratory testing processes. Thus, the new model does not provide a valid assessment of method performance, nor a practical methodology for selecting or designing statistical quality control procedures.

Mistaken assumptions drive new Six Sigma model off the road