Skip to main content
Advantive

The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 1

By Grace Barton Updated
The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 1

Me: As you think about your organization’s manufacturing quality efforts—what you’ve overcome and what you hope to accomplish in the future—there is something you need to know.

You: What? Who? Me?

Me: Yes, you. No matter how long you’ve been playing this game, and I know many of you have been playing it as long as I have, you find that there are many pitfalls to implementing a statistical process control (SPC) system.

I’ve been doing this for about 30 years, and I’ve worked with and witnessed hundreds of SPC implementations.  Many have been very successful, virtually transforming plants and corporate cultures. A few have been less than successful. And many—most, actually—occupy the murky middle ground between success and failure. These deployments are usually characterized by an interesting mix of localized support and excitement, coupled with an undercurrent of corporate indifference.

You: Okay, I’m interested. Go on…

Me: Although many quality experts know what to do for a successful SPC implementation, few know what not to do. That is, not until the damage is done…and SPC failure ripples throughout the entire organization and the mistakes are made obvious.

To help ensure that your SPC money is spent wisely and that your system has the highest probability of success, I think it’s a good idea to take the right steps that all the experts in all the books discuss, but don’t commit the mistakes I’ll be listing in this blog series. Forewarned is forearmed.

So, without further ado, let’s start our rundown of the Top 10 Mistakes to avoid when using SPC…here are numbers 10 and 9.

10. Train everyone
It’s no secret that SPC is a tremendous cost-saving and process-improvement tool. The general perception is that the more people who know about SPC, the better. I hate to contradict, but it’s just not so. Years ago, I was a consultant and trained many professionals in statistical methods and their use. My customers were good people representing good companies. They had good intentions and they wanted the best for their organizations. Their ideals were no different when it came to SPC knowledge.

In their good intentions, they typically required administrative staff, sales people, and other support personnel to attend SPC classes. Most of these folks had rarely, if ever, set foot onto a manufacturing shop floor. The result was quizzical looks, excessive doodling, and eyes glued to newspapers. They eventually raised their eyes, and then their hands, and they posed questions like, “Why, exactly, am I here?” Quite frankly, most of those administrative and support personnel shouldn’t have been in the class in the first place.

My response has always been that companies should train the people who are going to be actively involved in the use of SPC—not everyone. So don’t train all of your people in SPC. Don’t waste your money. Make SPC training available for the people who will be directly involved in improving your processes. Let the rest read the morning newspaper over coffee, on their own time—not during an expensive training session.

9. Chart everything
You may have spent thousands of dollars on SPC training. Now that your people have attended classes and passed the tests, what do you do next? Full of enthusiasm after their training, some answer this question by charting everything—from the number of minutes on time cards to the number of days late for purchase requisitions, and everything gets placed on a control chart. (Unfortunately, people who are new to SPC are sometimes left to their own devices for how their newly acquired statistical knowledge should be applied.) But the problem is: When everything is important, then nothing is.

My recommendation is to only use SPC where it’s needed. Start on the manufacturing shop floor, and don’t bother applying statistical methods if there’s even a hint of questionable benefit. This is especially important in the beginning stages. If the initial SPC implementation is identified for its convenience, or because it’s an area of high production, and therefore better suited to using an X-bar and a range-control chart, then forget it. It will be viewed by operations folks—rightly or wrongly—as just another management botch job. In this scenario, there’s minimal likelihood of making a splash and proving that SPC is a great tool.

Don’t forget that you need the support and backing of operators, process engineers, and support personnel to help SPC use be accepted and grow. The first area you choose for SPC use shouldn’t be problem-free. It probably won’t be the most convenient, or the easiest place, for using control charts.

Instead, search out areas where scrap, rework, and other issues need to be resolved. Tap the shoulder of your local Six Sigma expert and find out where process control issues are most prevalent. Talk with quality engineers and support personnel to determine where problems exist and, therefore, can be solved. Believe me, if your first use of SPC isn’t successful and SPC doesn’t make a splash, you could be in for a very rough road ahead. In short, don’t apply a wonderful technology such as SPC unless there’s a need for it.

Join me next time for more of this list of Top 10 Mistakes to avoid when using SPC…for numbers 8 and 7: “Segregate control charts from manufacturing” and “’Pinching’ the SPC Coordinator.” ‘Til then…

Read the other blogs in this series:
The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 2
The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 3
The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 4
The Top 10 SPC Mistakes: Part 5

Grace Barton

Marketing Specialist

About the Author Latest Posts

Grace Barton is a digital marketing and competitive intelligence professional who crafts strategic narratives by bridging marketing insights with analytical expertise. At Advantive, she creates engaging, data-driven content tailored to the distribution, manufacturing, packaging, and quality industries. Her goal is to deliver impactful messaging that drives engagement and growth based on specific gap closure needs, whether responding to sales organization requirements, pinpointing gaps in content, or meeting immediate market trends.
She thrives on transforming competitive intelligence into actionable insights for the sales organization. Grace manages Advantive’s competitive intelligence platform, Klue, to equip the sales team with the battlecards and market data they need to stay ahead of competitors. Since launch, she’s built 28+ battlecards across four lines of business, ensuring the GTM strategy stays sharp.
Grace has a passion for leveraging market insights with storytelling to guide strategic decision-making, empower sales organizations, and nurture organizational growth.

Areas of Expertise: Digital Marketing, Competitive Intelligence, Strategic Narratives, Marketing Insights, Analytical Expertise

LinkedIn

Editorial standards

Fact-checking & editorial guidelines

Every article on advantive.com is written and reviewed against an internal accuracy standard before publication. Here's what that means in practice.

  • Product claims are verified by the brand team that owns the platform.

    When an article references InfinityQS, WinSPC, PQ Systems, Pinpoint, ParityFactory, ProPlanner, KiwiPlan, DDI System, VeraCore, or any of Advantive's other specialty platforms, the relevant product team checks technical statements about features, deployment, and current capability before the article goes live.

  • External statistics cite their source inline.

    When an article references industry survey results, regulatory benchmarks, or third-party research, the source is linked at the point of citation. Statements without an inline source link are first-party observations drawn from Advantive's product teams or customer base.

  • Publication and revision dates stay visible.

    The original publication date and the most recent revision date are both shown on every article. Topics that change quickly — AI capabilities, regulatory rules, product roadmaps — are revisited on a tighter cadence than evergreen reference content.

  • Corrections are issued openly.

    If a factual error is reported, the article is updated, the revision date advances, and material corrections are noted at the bottom of the article so readers can see what changed and when.

Found something wrong, or have a citation to add? Get in touch with the editorial team and we'll review it.

Subject-matter review

Reviewed by subject-matter experts

Advantive is a portfolio of 14+ specialty software platforms — each one built and maintained by a product team that has spent years inside a specific manufacturing or distribution discipline. Articles in technical channels are reviewed by the relevant team before publication.

  • Quality & SPC content

    Reviewed by the InfinityQS, WinSPC, and PQ Systems product teams — the platforms behind statistical process control, capability analysis, and gage management deployments across food, automotive, pharma, and CPG manufacturers.

  • Manufacturing operations & MES content

    Reviewed by the PINpoint, ProPlanner, ParityFactory, and VIA Information Tools teams, whose platforms run production scheduling, traceability, and shop-floor execution for discrete, automotive, and food-and-beverage manufacturers.

  • Packaging & converter content

    Reviewed by the KiwiPlan, Abaca, and AdvantZware teams, who build software specifically for corrugated, folding-carton, and packaging-converter operations.

  • Distribution, ERP & B2B commerce content

    Reviewed by the DDI System (inFORM ERP), Distribution One, VeraCore, Pepperi, and Commerce Vision teams, whose platforms run wholesale ERP, fulfillment, field sales, and B2B portals for specialty distributors and 3PLs.

Are you a practitioner with domain expertise to contribute? Get in touch — we accept guest contributions from operators in the industries we serve.