Submit one anonymized process dataset — get a founder-reviewed SPC + capability report.Limited to first 10 users

Founder-reviewed SPC + capability report

Introduction

Every quality professional eventually faces the same uncomfortable moment: the spec is tight, the chart looks "okay," and someone in the room — a customer, an auditor, a program manager — asks the question that actually matters. Is the process stable? Is the capability defensible? Would you bet a launch on this analysis?

Producing a control chart or a Cpk number is the easy part. Producing a defensible engineering decision is the hard part. The Founder-Assisted SPC and Capability Review exists for that exact gap.

You submit one anonymized process dataset. The founder of Six Sigma Center personally performs the SPC and process-capability analysis, walks you through the findings, and delivers a written report you can defend in a PPAP package, a management review, an audit, or a customer scorecard meeting. Turnaround is 24 to 48 hours, the price is a flat $199, and the offer is intentionally limited to the first ten users.

This article explains what the offer is, who it is built for, what to send, how the analysis is performed, and why a founder review beats yet another chart on its own.

Who this offer is for

The review is positioned for practitioners who already understand the importance of process evidence and need help selecting, executing, or defending the analysis.

• Quality engineers preparing PPAP or capability evidence for a customer submission.
• Manufacturing and process engineers troubleshooting variation on a live line.
• Lean Six Sigma consultants validating a client dataset before a recommendation.
• Black Belts and Master Black Belts evaluating a Critical-to-Quality characteristic.
• New product introduction and product-development engineers supporting launch or transfer.
• Supplier-quality, regulatory, and continuous-improvement leaders accountable for evidence packs.

If your job is to defend a number rather than simply produce one, this offer was built with you in mind.

What you actually receive

The deliverable is not a calculation. It is a combination of technical execution, correct method selection, interpretation, and a written conclusion you can stand behind.

Each engagement includes:

• A founder-performed analysis covering Statistical Process Control and process-capability indices, run against your anonymized dataset.
• Explicit method selection — control-chart family, subgrouping strategy, distribution treatment, and the choice between short-term and long-term capability indices.
• A written interpretation framed for the audience you have to convince, whether that is a customer, an auditor, or an executive sponsor.
• A live walkthrough so you understand every decision the analysis made and can answer follow-up questions in your own meetings.
• Thirty days of Pro access to the Six Sigma Center platform so you can rerun, extend, or re-scope the analysis with your own data afterward.

Submit my dataset or book a 15-minute review

The five-stage workflow

The engagement follows a deliberate, repeatable workflow so there are no surprises on either side.

Stage 1: Confirm the project is a fit

A single process dataset, focused on one measurable Critical-to-Quality characteristic and a clear question — usually "Is this process stable?", "What is the real capability?", or "Which chart should I be running?"

Stage 2: Prepare the required data

CSV, Excel, or pasted measurements. At minimum you need one measurement column. To unlock capability analysis you also need specification limits and units of measure. Subgroup labels and time-order information are strongly preferred because they unlock the correct Statistical Process Control chart family and a defensible stability assessment.

Stage 3: Anonymize the dataset

The review is performed on the Voice of the Process — the measurements themselves — not on your business context. Direct and indirect identifiers come out before you send the file. Measurement values, units, specification limits, generic subgroup labels, and the time order stay in.

Stage 4: Submit the dataset or book a 15-minute review

Use the submission form to send the file, or book a short call first if you are not sure which question the data should answer. Both paths lead to the same engagement.

Stage 5: Receive the analysis and the explanation

Within 24 to 48 hours you receive the SPC and capability report, a founder walkthrough, and the 30 days of Pro access. You leave the engagement with both the artifact and the understanding to defend it.

What to send and what to strip

The anonymization rule is simple: keep everything the math needs, strip everything that identifies a person, customer, supplier, plant, or part.

Keep in the file:

• The measurement column (the actual numbers).
• Units of measure.
• Specification limits — lower, upper, or both — and the target if you have one.
• Generic subgroup labels such as Subgroup 1, Subgroup 2, Shift A, Shift B.
• Time order, ideally a timestamp or a sequential index.
• Generic column names — Measurement, Subgroup, Timestamp — rather than internal codes.

Remove from the file:

• Company, customer, and supplier names.
• Operator, inspector, and engineer names or IDs.
• Part numbers, work-order numbers, lot numbers, and serial numbers.
• Machine names, line names, plant codes, and cell identifiers.
• Any free-text field that names a real person, product, or program.

The two-column "remove versus keep" checklist on the offer page mirrors this guidance and is the single source of truth if you ever need to re-confirm it.

Why a founder review beats a chart on its own

Most quality engineers can calculate a Cpk or render a control chart. The harder questions are the ones that determine whether the analysis is actually defensible:

• Is the process stable enough to even justify a capability calculation?
• Was the correct control chart selected for the subgrouping and the data type?
• Should the report emphasize short-term capability (Cp and Cpk) or long-term performance (Pp and Ppk)?
• Is the distribution assumption defensible, and if not, what transformation or non-normal method is appropriate?
• Are the subgrouping and time-order structure valid for the way the process actually runs?
• When stability indicators and capability indicators disagree, which one wins and why?
• How should the result be framed for management, a customer, or an auditor without losing technical rigor?

The Founder-Assisted Review answers those questions inside the report itself. The walkthrough rehearses you on how to deliver the answers in your own meeting.

The trust model

The privacy posture is deliberately conservative. Anonymization is the customer''s responsibility, but the engagement is built to protect you even if you forget something.

• Submitted datasets are reviewed only for the purpose of producing your report.
• Submitted data is not used to train models.
• A Non-Disclosure Agreement can be requested before submission if your program requires one.
• The report is delivered back to you privately; nothing is published without your written permission.
• Generic, anonymized patterns may inform future product improvements; your specific data does not leave the engagement.

If you work with supplier, production, customer, medical-device, automotive, aerospace, or otherwise regulated process data, this posture is the floor you should expect from any external review.

Where this fits between DIY, software, and consulting

The Founder-Assisted Review is intentionally positioned between three alternatives that engineers usually choose from.

• Doing the analysis manually. Fastest to start, slowest to defend. A spreadsheet Cpk leaves every methodological choice unwritten and unreviewed.
• Buying software and learning it alone. Powerful, but the learning curve lands during the same week you owe your customer an answer. Modern Statistical Process Control and capability tooling still assumes you know which chart to choose and which index to report.
• Hiring a traditional consultant. High signal, high cost, long ramp. Useful for transformations; oversized for a single dataset and a single decision.

The Founder-Assisted Review is the smallest possible engagement that still gives you a written, defensible conclusion plus the platform underneath to keep working after the call.

The pilot economics

The commercial structure is intentionally tight so the offer stays high-touch.

• Flat $199 per engagement.
• Limited to the first ten users.
• 24 to 48 hour turnaround once the anonymized dataset arrives.
• One dataset per engagement; additional datasets are a separate engagement.
• Includes 30 days of Pro access to the Six Sigma Center platform.

The cap exists because the founder personally performs each review. Once the ten seats are claimed the offer either rotates into a waitlist or evolves into a different format — both reasons to claim a seat early if the offer is a fit.

Key Takeaways

• The product is a defensible engineering decision, not a calculation.
• One anonymized dataset, one Critical-to-Quality characteristic, one founder review.
• Specification limits and time order unlock the most defensible analysis; send them when you have them.
• Anonymization is straightforward: keep the math, remove the identifiers.
• The offer is a structured bridge between doing the work alone, learning new software, and engaging a traditional consultant.
• The cap of ten users is the offer, not a marketing line — claim a seat early if it fits your program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I have to share proprietary data?

No. The engagement is built around an anonymized dataset. You strip identifiers before submission; the analysis runs on the measurements and the specification context. A Non-Disclosure Agreement can be requested before you send anything.

What file formats do you accept?

CSV, Excel, or pasted measurements. At minimum the file needs one measurement column. For capability analysis include specification limits and units. For Statistical Process Control include subgroup labels and time order when they exist.

How is this different from buying SPC software or hiring a consultant?

Software gives you the tools and the learning curve. A traditional consultant gives you a large engagement. The Founder-Assisted Review is the smallest engagement that still produces a written, defensible conclusion plus thirty days of Pro access to the platform you can keep using afterward.

What do I get back in 24 to 48 hours?

A Statistical Process Control and capability report on your dataset, a founder walkthrough that rehearses you on the conclusions, and Pro access to Six Sigma Center so you can rerun or extend the analysis with your own data.

Why is the offer limited to ten users?

Because the founder personally performs each review. The cap protects turnaround time and the depth of the walkthrough. Once the ten seats are claimed the offer either rotates into a waitlist or evolves into a different format.

References

• NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, Chapter 6: Process or Product Monitoring and Control. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/pmc.htm
• AIAG, Production Part Approval Process (PPAP), 4th Edition. https://www.aiag.org/quality/automotive-core-tools/ppap
• U.S. FDA, Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) — 21 CFR Part 820. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/quality-system-qs-regulationmedical-device-current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmp
• ISO 13485:2016, Medical devices — Quality management systems — Requirements for regulatory purposes. https://www.iso.org/standard/59752.html
• ICH Q10, Pharmaceutical Quality System. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q10%20Guideline.pdf

Share Your Thoughts

Found this article helpful? Have a question or suggestion? Let us know!

Fred Stevens

Fred Stevens is a mechanical engineer, Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, and founder of Six Sigma Center. For more than two decades, he has helped engineering and manufacturing organizations transform complex product, process, and quality challenges into practical, data-driven decisions. His experience spans medical devices, automotive manufacturing, aerospace and defense, renewable energy, and advanced industrial production. Across these environments, Fred has led new product integration, manufacturing-line development and transfer, process validation, product commercialization, equipment implementation, and continuous-improvement initiatives. Fred's work combines hands-on engineering with statistical problem-solving. He has applied SPC, process capability analysis, measurement-system analysis, hypothesis testing, DOE, regression, root-cause analysis, and risk-based quality methods to improve process understanding and support defensible engineering decisions. He has also designed production tooling and test fixtures, developed automated statistical-analysis tools, and worked within FDA, ISO 13485, ISO 14971, GMP, and other structured quality-system environments. As founder of Six Sigma Center, Fred is productizing that experience into guided analytical tools for quality engineers, manufacturing engineers, product-development teams, and Lean Six Sigma practitioners. His goal is straightforward: make rigorous process analysis easier to perform, easier to interpret, and easier to translate into meaningful action.

Related Articles

Introduction to Statistical Process Control Charts

A comprehensive guide to SPC control charts, including I-MR, X-bar R, and attribute charts. Learn when to use each chart type for effective process monitoring.

Understanding Process Capability: Cp vs Cpk Explained

Learn the fundamental differences between Cp and Cpk process capability indices, when to use each metric, and how to interpret results for quality improvement.

Voice of the Customer vs Voice of the Process: Why the Distinction Matters

VOC defines what customers require. VOP reveals what your process delivers. Confusing the two leads to misguided improvements and persistent quality failures. Learn to bridge the gap with SPC and capability analysis.