davecr at ix.netcom.com (David Crisp) wrote:
The current standards are now published through the US QC
organization. The words are changed slightly, but in most respects the
two are the same. I do find the word changes make the tables easier to
As an alternative, you might try your own sampling plans. However, you
should end up with much the same, since all this is based on
probability. I suggest that you get a copy of the new standards and
read carefully. If you can accept the lower confidence, you can use
these to do just about anythin.
Just remember, your not test for a regulatory agency, your testing for
you company to avoid costly errors. You need to make cost benefit
decisions that work best for you.
>I'm trying to find a valid alternative to the MIL-STD 105E tables to
>develop a QC sampling plan. (If you haven't heard of these, thank your
>stars). A manufacturing group for which I am consulting thinks the
>material consumption rate is too high with the use of the MIL-STD tables.
>I'm stuck with the task of coming up with an alternative method that has
>some statistical basis (I'm not a statistician by any stretch of the
>Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
>>>Slower traffic keep right>>
b3748 at cts.com
San Diego, CA