Comments for Pharma BI

Comment on Fiscal Period Calculations in Tableau by Christine Muser

Christine Muser — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:44:00 +0000

Cool, Joe, thanks. Short and sweet – with the added flexibility of providing the number of days for any date during the year. Helpful for calculating average daily uses of widgets

Comment on Fiscal Period Calculations in Tableau by Joe Mako

Joe Mako — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:36:16 +0000

Interesting calculations. Here is another to calculate the number of days in a year:

DATEPART(‘dayofyear’,DATE(“12/31/”+DATENAME(‘year’,[Order Date])))

Comment on Dual Axis Graphs: Are They Useful? by Christine Muser

Christine Muser — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:29:43 +0000

Thanks, Joe, those are excellent suggestions

Comment on Dual Axis Graphs: Are They Useful? by Joe Mako

Joe Mako — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:02:37 +0000

I would also add that the visualization should be built to answer the question. If the goal is to determine if the counts or amount is increasing or decreasing, and not so much what the exact count/amount is, then looking at percent difference creates a common scale that provides a valid comparison so you can see the rate of increase charted instead of just comparing the slope of the lines. Another option when the values you want to compare are very different (10s vs 1000s) is a logarithmic scale. Stephen Few’s book “Now You See It”: http://www.perceptualedge.com/library.php covers additional alternatives to quantitatively display values in situations like these and keep the visual representation of the data accurate so you can come to correct conclusions. I believe dual axis charts with different scales mislead more than they help because they add visually interesting features that should not be paid attention to (like when the lines cross).

Comment on Mixed Metaphor: Line Graph + Bar Chart by Christine Muser

Christine Muser — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:19:01 +0000

Joe, I have to admit that even after reading Stephen Few’s article, I am not quite ready to rule out dual axis graphs entirely. As is so often the case with data visualization, whether we use it depends on what we’re trying to do. Here's a post with additional thoughts …

Comment on Mixed Metaphor: Line Graph + Bar Chart by Christine Muser

Christine Muser — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:57:17 +0000

Joe,

as always, you make an excellent point – and it made me chuckle at myself for not catching that point when I wrote the post. Thanks for sharing the links.

Comment on Mixed Metaphor: Line Graph + Bar Chart by Joe Mako

Joe Mako — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:47:04 +0000

The main thing I do not like about dual axis charts that use different scales is when the lines cross, I have to remember that that point or crossing is meaningless, and trying to compare the magnitude of the lines to each other can also be misleading.

If you goal is to show both an increase in count over time, but a small percent difference between each, then a dual axis of percent difference from first along with percent difference from previous would make more sense in my opinion. And if you wanted to see the detail of one, you could put them on separate axes.

Here is an example: http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/percentdifferencedualaxis/Both

I would also recommend checking out Stephen Few’s thoughts on what happens when you use a dual axis: http://www.perceptualedge.com/articles/visual_business_intelligence/dual-scaled_axes.pdf

Comment on Volcanoes, Airplanes and Quantifying Risk by Christine Muser

Christine Muser — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:01:51 +0000

Claudia,

thank you for your comment and implied question. You are right: it appears that better communication and coordination would have made this episode less frustrating to everyone concerned.

What makes these events also applicable to Six Sigma is the Catch-22 between “lack of data” and “defining the problem.” In the Define phase of DMAIC our challenge is to understand and agree on the parameters that allow us to quantify the problem and measure progress. When we deal with routine situations, we have industry norms and best practices to guide the problem definition. Things get interesting when knowledgeable people disagree about what the norms and best practices should be. In this case, some people felt the need to be conservative in the name of safety, while others preferred to assess the risk in less stringent terms.

A successful Six Sigma project leader needs to be able to harmonize conflicting needs and priorities in order to complete the “Define” phase. Often data can help, but there are times when stakeholders disagree on what the data means and how it should influence our actions. To me the Eyjafjallajokull eruption is a case study of how difficult “defining the issue” can be.

Comment on Volcanoes, Airplanes and Quantifying Risk by Claudia

Claudia — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:50:21 +0000

My sister was caught in Ireland during this most recent eruption. It got me researching the techniques that the IATA used to determine what was safe and what was too risky. All very interesting and I can see why they held off hundreds of flights – really they would have gotten worse press had they “allowed” a plane to crash.

Not sure why this was linked under six sigma or how six sigma methodology could have made much of a difference (though better communication may have), but you’ve provided some good links.

Comment on Toyota: Did Six Sigma Fail or Did People Fail? by Claudia

Claudia — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:42:21 +0000

In this way accident, ignorance or laziness can be controlled, if all the required elements are not in place (quality) then you cannot move on. So true. The question here shouldn't be whether the methodology failed or the people failed. It should be whether the methodology was implemented, explained, and managed properly by the people who decided to put it in place. Six sigma is a great methodology, it's not magic. It still requires work, management and checks/balances.