Vishnukiran L S

Cpk of value 1.1111 means its barely capable process, because it produces 64 ppm but less than 2700 non-conforming ppm. In this case, the process width is touching the specification width. Cp of value 1.3333 means its a capable process, but not highly capable process (which should have been near 1.5). The overall sigma value is between 3.3 & 3.4, meaning it has 967 non confirming parts per million, if we take sigma value as ~3.3. Overall this looks like an existing process which has been just satisfying the needs but has potential to increase its capability & maturity.

For creating a beautiful product which to be very successful in the market with scalability and high performance, all aspects like business sense, technology and users are important. Now one can start the debate about -- which is the pivotal point between business, technology & people. But the reality is all the three. Now let us consider users gives requirements which are next to fantasy, then technology might come in the way. Even if we can able to implement them then the next big question would be about business viability to create & maintain the product. Overall my argument is: user desires mapped to requirements should drive the product design complimented with thorough analysis of technology and creating a safe business plan. With all three coming together one can create a long lasting product in the market. Now let us take few real world examples. During early 90's Motorola started a very ambitious project to have satellite phones by launching a total of 66 satellites. The technology was cutting edge at that time and it worked as per specification. But this whole project venture failed due to per phone call usage cost. This is a classic example of great product with niche technology without biz viability. Another great example is Microsoft's Lumia (Windows) phone, in which there was very good investment on UI & UX of the product with multiple surveys for user-centric design. Quite robust Windows technology reused. But at if failed in the market because it did not able to reach profitable stage. Some of the reasons are product BOM cost was quite high so that they could not able to generate a good margin. The third example is about AoL (America Online) which failed due to technology to some extent in which other two parts (biz & consumer requirements) were taken care. In-fact AOL was arguably the mother all messaging app in current scenario. It had all right ingredients like Email, Buddy list, & all. But ultimately it failed when competitors started using high speed internet services. AOL couldn't able to recognise this fact fast & failed by not employing right faster internet back-end infra for its service. So one can find many such real world examples, which proves that one can not just leave complete product innovation to consumer needs/wants. Its a fine balance between all the three pillars -- consumer needs/wants, business sense & technology. Of course there are other salient factors like quality, competition, etc. will also play roles in shaping the innovation.

hi, Practical reasons for less up taking of LL process in any organization are (purely based on my past experience): Political reasons – people generally do not wish to open up improvement areas (“-ve” aspects of projects) fearing repercussions. Typically this is also linked to organisation culture. In some organisation – open communications are not encouraged or even feared. Lack of process itself -- There are no defined LL process structure (who does it, when it will be done, what should be discussed, who are the consumers of LL minutes, lack of tools & infra-structure etc.) In-effective project management – The typical project management also consists of capturing all key information throughout various phases of a project. If not done properly or captured wrongly, then LLs are either not done or done just for the sake of it regds Vishnukiran L S