Talk:Ishikawa diagram/Archives/2012

Cleaning

Hi, I cleaned up this page a little and got rid of the how-to section, but I'm not sure how it needs expanding. Any ideas? --CarrotMan 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I will update the page and some related data in line with the book, Managing Quality 5th ed (ISBN: 978-1-4051-4279-3) Barrie G. Dale. Currently just finishing a Total Quality Management module at university and this was our core text book on this topic. - Weeman com (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CarrotMan! I noticed that "Materials: Raw materials, parts, pens, paper, etc. used to produce the final product" seemed off, somehow. I believe it should be "Materials: Raw materials (i.e. metals, alloys, compounds, paper, chemicals, etc.) parts, lubricants, catalysts, and the like, used to produce the final product." I say this because 'pens', in particular, are normally a tool unless they are the product. There are pens that are parts, of course, but the inclusion of 'pens' confuses the subject, in my opinion. Lastly, there was no description of the 'Management' part of the diagram; an unfortunate omission. FordsTowel (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know this diagram as a "Fishbone" diagram. Yet up top, it isn't shown as one of the common names. Further down in the article the section "Questions to be asked while building a Fishbone Diagram" obviously refers to the diagram as that. Can we add that as a name? Fishbone does already redirect to here. --Mfactor (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is this thing really called a bonehead diagram or is that just vandalism?--Mfactor (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• I looked up "bonehead diagram" in Wikipedia and didn't get a hit. I'm assuming this is vandalism and will replace it with "fishbone diagram".--Mfactor (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism

I've just tried to clarify, tighten, and correct that section. But I do not even understand what its final sentence is supposed to mean, so I'm at a loss to perform any improvements on it. Can somebody who does understand it mend it? Failing that, can somebody who is reasonably expert in this topic figure out whether to just nuke the sentence?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted changes and put the criticism section back into the form it was in when I created it. This is closely tied to the published literature. This section was intended to show that there has been criticism of Ishikawa in respect of causation, and to direct the reader to the literature where this is published.

At some point an editor has added: "Ishikawa diagrams are meant to use the necessary conditions and split the "sufficient" ones into the "necessary" parts" If this is, in fact, a genuine interpretation of Ishikawa diagrams, I would love to see the paper where it is published, however, the editor does not provide any citations. It is to be remembered that Ishikawa did not use the terms necessary or sufficient condition in his own published works (at least in none of the translations that I have read), but only the terms "cause" and "causes".

Personally I can not make any sense of the changes that have been made either as an account of causation or as an explanation of Ishikawa. --Logicalgregory (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)