Definition A 'New' Aspect of the Cove - A Definitions and Acronyms page?

I like the idea, but it is a daunting task. We can of course ask our members to contribute to the definitions knowledge base. Take a look at:
*** DEAD LINKS REMOVED ***
IMO, both these are limited in their scope. I'd also like to see more detailed definitions with some explaination if possible.

Atul, thank you for those links! Good resource!

Robyn said:

Atul, thank you for those links! Good resource!

Click to expand...

I disagree--it's a terrible resource, and a good example of why constructing a glossary--please don't call it an "acronyms" list--is fraught with danger. Here's an example from one of the links, a definition of "capability":

"Capability analysis is a graphical or statistical tool that visually or mathematically compares actual process performance to the performance standards established by the customer.
To analyze (plot or calculate) capability you need the mean and standard deviation associated with the required attribute in a sample of product (usually n=30), and customer requirements associated with that product."

Note the glaring absence of the need to verify process stability, which probably isn't even possible when n=30. "Graphical or statistical"??? The writer also causes unnecessary confusion by saying "attribute" instead of "feature" or "characteristic."

In just cursory glance at some of the other definitions I found similar weaknesses. I'm not saying that a Cove glossary is a bad idea; I'm just saying that there is a fairly daunting responsibility for accuracy that goes with it, and that responsibility should not be taken lightly. Definitions (which are akin to specifications) form the basis of our work and must be treated with due respect.

Yes! The use of "attribute" invalidates the entire definition. Worse - because it represents an "authority," some newbie might pick up the wrongful jargon and talk about "attributes" when he means "characteristic" - worlds apart in meaning in most manufacturing mileus.

Expanding on the idea, Marc could set up a CoveWiki. For those who don't know, Wiki's are collabrative encyclopedias, essentially - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for an example. People can submit catagories or expand on existing entries. Everyone can edit an entry but the previous versions are saved in case someone make a mistake.

Just a thought.

Actually, I have downloaded wiki software from Sourceforge and am considering it. I have also contemplated a 'dedicated' forum for definitions, acronyms, etc.

While I realize that if we do somethng like this it will be quite an effort, I perceived it as much of a 'seed' function as anything else. That is to say, a 'seed' post for a given term (definition, acronym, etc.) would start the thread or wiki page. From there whoever wants to contribute, correct, expound upon, point out errors in, etc., could do so bringing in thoughts and contributions from many people in many different situations.

In some cases there might be more than one thread for, as an example, CMM. There is CMM - as in a coordinate measuring machine, and there is capability maturity model in software development.

Just thinking out loud.

Human nature

I voted yes.

The other day I received a response to a question that stated an Ishikawa diagram would be a good place to start with regards to my problem.

I didn't know what one was! Since it is usually human nature to avoid looking stupid and showing weakness to others, I searched the Cove attachments section and found several examples of what an Ishikawa diagram is.

So now I know.

I guess I use the attachments section as my resource for finding answers to things that I do not know. Over the years, there is a nice library of "how to" type .pdf files on there that have answered my basic questions. Still I voted yes because if this information was sorted from the other attachments I think it would be quicker and more user-friendly.

little__cee said:

The other day I received a response to a question that stated an Ishikawa diagram would be a good place to start with regards to my problem. I didn't know what one was!.

Click to expand...

Google search for "Ishikawa diagram" yielded 70,000 hits. This was the first one: https://mot.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/mt322/Ishikawa.htm

little__cee said:

Since it is usually human nature to avoid looking stupid and showing weakness to others

Click to expand...

You must not be married.

Wes Bucey said:

Yes! The use of "attribute" invalidates the entire definition. Worse - because it represents an "authority," some newbie might pick up the wrongful jargon and talk about "attributes" when he means "characteristic" - worlds apart in meaning in most manufacturing mileus.

Click to expand...

As a newbie, I lean heavily on the cove for self education, and I normally search the other internet resources if I need a glossary. I was going to vote "No", until I read the above, and realised that if I someone asked my what the difference was between 'attribute' and 'characteristic', I'd have to go away and look it up.

BTW, I did do a google search on the above 2 terms; the first hit I got was a defn. for attribute:

attribute
1.) A characteristic.

So, (and here comes a newbie opinion, so feel free to weight it accordingly..) I voted "Yes". I think many groups (take "Quality Professionals" as an example) will use language for their own requirements, and this can lead to confusion.
If an operator comes running into the Quality Dept. yelling "My process is out of control!", does he mean:

1. The process has gone outside the control limits; or
2. The process is no longer capable, and is now producing 'bad' parts?

So far, I have only seen the latter (which I acknowledge may be a cultural issue). I'd love to have a glossary that is close to perfection for Quality terminology; if it already exists, show me the way ...

That (differing, non-specific meanings) can cause a lot of nitty-gritty errors. The simple fact is, EVERY industry has "industry-specific" meanings. My own Quality Manual has this:

3.1 Industry definitions and acronyms


Every industry uses terms (including acronyms) which have a particular meaning within the industry. We try to clarify the meaning of such terms by including a definition or a spelled out title of an acronym with its first usage in our manual. We have included these terms in our Glossary and Index for handy reference. By using the index, the reader can see how the term is used in context.

Our objective is to use simple technically accurate terms, and to the greatest extent possible, rely on common dictionary definitions. As with most technical subjects, some terms have a very specific meaning different from their commonly used dictionary definitions. In this case, the appropriate technical definition is provided in our Glossary.

Click to expand...