I know... I know... Six sigma is 'over rated'. But then again, maybe not. Here's something to think about from Forbes web site:

------snippo------

For GE’s Jack Welch, cost-cutting isn’t an event—it’s a process.
Revealed at last: the secret of Jack Welch’s success

By Michelle Conlin

THERE ARE CERTAIN management mantras that will forever be associated with General Electric’s Jack Welch: being only number one or number two in your field and preaching the “boundaryless” sharing of ideas, a process that breaks down traditional corporate hierarchies to make sure that information flows up as well as down.

To that add a defect-reduction program called Six Sigma. Don’t let the jargon fool you: This is serious stuff, and Welch has embraced it with his usual zeal. Six Sigma contributes mightily to GE’s earnings growth, which was 13%in 1996 and should reach 14% in 1997.

Think of a sigma as a mark on a bell curve that measures standard deviation. Most companies have between 35,000 and 50,000 defects per million operations, or about 3 sigma. For GE, a defect could be anything from the misbilling of an NBC advertiser to faulty wiring in locomotives. Three years ago GE engineers determined that the company was averaging 35,000 defects per million operations—or about 3.5 sigma. (The higher the sigma, the fewer the errors.) That was a better-than-average showing, but not enough for Welch’s restless mind.

He’s now maniacal about hitting his goal of reducing defects to the point where errors would be almost nonexistent: 3.4 defects per million, or 6 sigma.

“This is not about sloganeering or bureaucracy or filling out forms,” Welch says. “It finally gives us a route to get to the control function, the hardest thing to do in a corporation.”

In implementing Six Sigma, Welch borrowed a page from Motorola—whose engineers first embraced the concept in the early 1990s—and from AlliedSignal, which followed Motorola’s lead.

It took Motorola eight years to get to 6 sigma from about 3 sigma. Welch said he wanted to get there faster and, like Motorola, apply the Six Sigma program to all the company’s businesses. Five years, he said, not eight.

That was in 1995. Already GE has reduced its defect rate to more than 3.5 sigma. Welch has demanded that the defect reduction program apply not just to the goods rolling off all the manufacturing lines but to performance during the product’s lifetime as well.

Customers of GE’s Milwaukee-based medical division were frustrated by the short life span of the tubes in GE’s CAT scanners. The tubes lasted for about 50,000 to 100,000 X rays and took about four hours to replace. Lots of angry patients and lost dollars.

GE assigned a team of Six Sigma “Black Belts”—as those trained to manage the program are called—to the problem. Their job was to measure and analyze each phase of the tube manufacturing process to see what improvements could be made.

Engineers found they could reduce by nine months the time needed to perfect new models of the X-ray tubes. GE is producing tubes that have up to five times the life span of the old tubes. The new tubes provide sharper, more complete pictures, allowing physicians to examine images of the entire brain of a stroke victim, rather than just slices at a time.

The cost savings flow over to other areas: Defect-free tubes coming off the assembly line help free up production capacity. What GE Medical Systems learned in making this product better is now being extended to other kinds of X-ray tubes the company makes.

The Six Sigma program has produced unexpected benefits. The conventional wisdom was that GE Medical needed to use expensive titanium and tungsten to make X-ray tube bolts. The Black Belts came up with proof that cheaper materials like aluminum and steel would do just fine.

Before they get credit for any savings, Welch requires Six Sigma Black Belts to prove that the problems are fixed permanently. Forty percent of each bonus given to all top managers is now tied to Six Sigma goals.

The money is well spent. Savings at the Medical Systems division alone hit $40 million last year. Also in 1997 GE raised its companywide savings estimates for the defect program twice, from between $400 million to $500 million, then to $600 million and $650 million.

By the year 2000, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter analyst Jennifer Pokrzywinski figures gross annual benefit from the program could be as much as $6.6 billion, 5.5% of sales.

Now you have the secret of Jack Welch’s success. Not a series of brilliant insights or bold gambles, but a fanatical attention to detail.

Marc,

Good post. I would humbly suggest, however, that six-sigma is not 'over-rated.' Rather, I think it is, perhaps, 'over-sold.'

As with other quality management programs, applied correctly, it will work. Applied incorrectly, it is just another collection of paper.

Regards,
Don

I say 'over rated' because I've been through the arguments before including the 'theoretical' 1.5 sigma shift.

Marc,

I also believe that six-sigma is significant. The 1.5 sigma shift you mentioned brings up an interesting point. Even though the opportunities for failure values may not change by a significant amount, there is an argument (maybe or maybe not justified) that due to the shift, there is a loss function involved. I remember reading that somewhere, and mathematically, there may be some justification.

Comments by interested parties appreciated.

Batman,

Roger Burns (Harris Corp.) said, “I think if it going to be successful, a lot of it has to do with support from a pretty high level within the organization.” He was referring to another subject, but it pretty much applies to any QMS system implemented.

Regards,
Don

What follows is a discussion I found regarding the Six Sigma Concept. Whaddya Think?

Regards,
Don

Re: Six Sigma and Deming
----------------------------------------------------------
* Subject: Re: Six Sigma and Deming
* From: "William J. Latzko"
* Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:47:52 -0400
----------------------------------------------------------

Six Sigma does the right things for the wrong reason. See my paper at http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/six_sig.pdf . The theory on which six sigma is based is flawed. However, since it contributes to continual, never ending improvement it has a psychological value. Why not adopt a policy of continual improvement and be done with it.

The drawback to six sigma is that it cost a lot and may mislead the user into a sense of comfort that is not deserved. I am much reminded of the reliance people used to put on MIL-STD-105 when they thought that the AQL was the buyers protection.

Bill Latzko

---------------------------------------------------
* Subject: Motorola +/- 1.5 sigma Wavering/Shifts
* From: "H Södersved"
* Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:43:17 +0200
---------------------------------------------------

1. According the Dr. DJ Wheeler the 1.5 sigma shifts come "out of the blue", from nowhere. An assumption that builds Special Causes into the process from the start to very high cost levels. Think of the cost of design when an extra unspecified capability of 3 sigma is forced into the product design.

2. I have tried to find an explanatory origin in the Motorola papers on this shift and have found none.

3. An attempt to understand: Electronic systems, that has been my living for 27 years, have very complex interactions between many types of material processes. When product design times have become extremely short (3 to 6 months) and in practice the most competitive strategic tool (Deming's 1st Quality Prong: Innovation), there is simply not enough time to find all special causes in the upstream processes before it is time to launch the next model. This is how I "might" understand the practical way of dealing with this excessive noise in the product/manufacturing stream.

4. At the same time that Motorola developed the Six Sigma Approach, in 1985 I at Ericsson Radio Systems and some other Surface Mount Specialists here in Scandinavia (Tandberg Data etc) started measuring Attribute Data in PPM (parts per million), or DPM (defects per million) as Motorola says. I did not know Deming nor conventional capability analysis, due to the lack of training, education and interest from Technical University and my earlier managers. We were inspired by the ppm-measurement practice in Japanese Industry. In three years we could improve the manufacturing processes from 45000 ppm to 50 ppm. In California some company reproted the same result in one year. We did not know anything of the +/- 1.5 sigma shift at Motorola. This was very essential for the Ericsson success in Mobile Telephone Systems worldwide.

5. When reaching the 50 ppm level we started emphasizing the Six Sigma approach for capability of test varibles of the process, without knowing better. But electronic designers were very restrictive to our efforts, maybe they undestood the analytic crazyness better. Donald Wheeler was the first person who relly gave me strength to look through the fallacy of Six Sigma. The Six Sigma should be called 4.5 Sigma Approach and nothing else. Still the problem is that it is a Specification Method, not a Deming nor SPC method!

Expira AB, Process & Quality Management
Bjornidegrand 3, S-162 46 VALLINGBY


-------------------------------------------------------------
* Subject: RE: More on 6 Sigma
* From: "Murphy, Kevin P (GEAE)"
* Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:54:51 -0400
-------------------------------------------------------------

Mikel Harry, the President of the Six Sigma Academy, also refers to the following articles to justify the 1.5 sigma shift:

Bender, A. (1975) "Statistical Tolerancing as it Relates to Quality Control and the Designer." Automotive Division Newsletter of ASQC

Evans, David H. (1975) "Statistical Tolerancing: The State of the Art, Part III: Shifts and Drifts." Journal of Quality Technology; 7 (2), pp. 72-76

Gilson, J. (1951) A New Approach to Engineering Tolerances. London, England; Machinery Publishing Company Ltd.

Basically, his idea is this:

From the research mentioned above, he quotes Evans (1975):

"....shifts and drifts in the mean of the distribution of a component occur for a number of reasons...for example, tool wear in one source of a gradual (nonrandom) drift...which can cause (nonrandom) shifts in the distribution. Except in special cases, it is almost impossible to predict quantitatively the changes in the distribution of a component value which will occur, but the knowledge that they will occur enables us to cope with the difficulty. A solution proposed by Bender...allows for (nonrandom) shifts and drifts. Bender suggests that one should use: V = 1.5*SQRT(VAR X) as the standard deviation of the response to relate the component tolerances and the response tolerance."

>From here, Harry suggests that a generalization can be made, namely:

(st)^2 = C(sw)^2 OR C=st/sw

He calls c "the magnitude of inflation imposed on the instantaneous reproducibility.", or "It may be said that c is a compensatory constant used to correct the sustained reproducibility for the effect of nonrandom manufacturing errors which perturbs the process center." He claims that the general range of c proposed by the above three articles is between 1.4 and 1.8.

By "assuming a rational sampling strategy", he shows that:

average quadratic mean deviation = (sw)^2*(c^2 (ng-1)-g(n-1))/ng

where n = subgroup size and g = number of subgroups

Next, he does a couple of algebraic manipulations and then standardizes the equation, yielding

Zshift = SQRT {(c^2(ng-1) - g(n-1))/ng}

He then says that typically in the general range of sampling conventions, n is usually between 4 and 6, and g between 10 and 100. When you use c = 1.8, and you plug in the "typical" values of n = 5 and g=50, voila! Zshift = 1.49 which is just about 1.5, what he calls the standard mean shift correction. (I got 1.55 when I plugged in the numbers)

Basically, since he is trying to formulate a cookbook approach, he wanted a standard value. It would seem that when you decide to change your tooling or how much drift you allow would depend on the loss function for that process, which he does not cover at all, since he promotes a specification-oriented, project-centered, cookbook viewpoint (which does have some advantages, well maybe only two, namely quicker buy-in and easier training since you don't have to think as much).

Obviously, views represented by me (hey, I always called them facts) are not necessarily those of my employer.

> Kevin P. Murphy GEAE Six Sigma Quality (BB)
> General Electric Company
> Aircraft Engines
> 1 Neumann Way M/D J30
> Cincinnati, Ohio 45215

Hello everyone:
Who would like to tell me the web site
of 6-sigma or any information,
but not the concept only.
I think some practice are best.
thank you.
have a nice day. Mar.22/1999

Try these to start:

*** DEAD LINKS REMOVED ***

Regards,
Don

-------Snip--------

Subject: Re: Six Sigma On the Rise?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:46:27 EDT
From: GrantBlair
To: den.list

In a message dated 4/15/99 1:40:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
latzko writes:

“Six Sigma theory is based on a misunderstanding of Dr. Shewhart's ideas. See my paper on the DEN at http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/six_sig.pdf for more. Bill Latzko”

Six Sigma is based on an EXTENSION of Dr. Shewhart's ideas developed by statisticans at Motorola and is a sound application both theoretically and practically. If you're a theoretical type: (by this, I mean you went to Bill's reference and understood what he was talking about };-).

1. Bill states in the paper that Six Sigma theory requires assumptions of a normal distribution.

This is incorrect. You can demonstrate that Six Sigma applies to non-normal distrubutions using a modification of Chebycheff's inequality.

2. Bill also sates in the paper that the 1.5 mean shift assumes an unstable process and "unstable distributions are unpredictable" This is also incorrect. ALL PROCESSES are inherently unstable.

This is a Law of Physics known as Entropy. However, this doesn't mean that a process producing toothpicks will one day randomly produce a telephone pole. (If you believe this, then I'll be glad to sell you an Encyclopedia typed by a room full of monkeys). This is another reason Six Sigma theory works.

Now, if you're a practical type, here are some more arguments for Six Sigma:

1. Parts per thousand defect levels were great in Shewhart and Deming's time, but won't work in today's world---- parts per million levels are required. (A good example is airplanes.....would you fly an airline which accepted a defect level of 3 parts per thousand and ran a thousand flights per month???? Think about it.)

2. Jack Welch is not an advocate of Six Sigma because it's threoretically correct...he endorses it because it is providing DEMONSTRATED SAVINGS to GE. One requirement for becoming a 6 Sigma black belt includes completing an project demonstrating $100k in cost benefits. There are a LOT of black belts at GE.....

Ninety Six SC

-------End Snip-------

And Another

-------Snip--------

Subject: Re: Jim McKinley's Post "Six Sigma on the rise"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:54:35 -0500
From: Eugene Taurman

Six sigma as started by Motorola as a vision statement was a great idea. Six sigma as taught by the Motorola University is pretty good approach to change.

As preached by Welch I have no idea what he is saying. Motorola's vision was concise and to the point. Every process will have a 100% safety factor between what we think we need or the customer needs and our capability.

Motorola tried to be clever and worked on a two humped distribution idea to allow for the fact that short term capability studies never included all the variable that impact out put. Often people focus on this but it has little to do with the original mission. The original mission make all processes capable had a very positive positive impact on people, attitude and priorities as they tried to bring processes into control and make them capable.

As I see what Welch and others are doing is making it into a program trying to copy Motorola activities.

Good luck this is just another in the series of people trying to make Deming dies something they can sell.

et

-------End Snip-------

Regards,
Don

-------Begin Snip-------

From: "Bill Scherkenbach"
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:19:45 -0400
Subject: Fw: Six Sigma On the Rise?

When the statistical community was up in arms over Taguchi, Dr. Deming was not as perturbed as most everyone else was. I asked why. He smiled and recalled the battles of Pearson and Fisher becoming public and confusing unknowing but all powerful management. Best to have the battles but keep them private.

I have seen the comings of other "pretenders" "hacks" etc. The Deming community (not Deming) has ridiculed most everyone else claiming to offer a method for improvement. Crosby, Juran, Taguchi, Shainin, Six Sigma, Reengineering, et al. I certainly did my share.

The arguments were almost exclusively in the Logical world, though. I think our assumption (wrong) was that if we could convince the others of the Logical pitfalls/deficiencies/error-of-their-thinking that they would change. It works for some, but not everyone.

We have got to respect the perspectives of the Physical, and Emotional world views. Logical fallacies have been identified by logical people who don't want logic contaminated by Physical or Emotional tricks. Get a life. Physical, Logical, and Emotional is us.

Yes, Six Sigma is logically flawed. It could be done better by anyone of us. But arguing on that level won't stop it. You have to join a different world to make an impact here. Start receiving and broadcasting on all three frequencies.

Bill

From: "Novick, David T"
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:24:35 -0700
Subject: FW: Jim McKinley's Post "Six Sigma on the rise"

The following item was included in the den-list digest of April 21. While I have reduced my activity to one of a "reader," this is a topic I cannot dismiss commenting upon.

> ----------
>From: Jerry Mairani
>Sent: Saturday, April 17, 1999 8:09 AM
>Subject: RE: Jim McKinley's Post "Six Sigma on the rise"

>I see that six sigma has once again made its way into the discussion. If I
>recall we had quite a discuss about a year ago. I quite agree with Jim
>McKinley's statement. "As I see what Welch and others are doing is makingit
>into a program trying to copy Motorola activities." As we know from WED,
>copying just doesn't work!!!

>Taking the time to gain an understanding of the principles of six sigma (let
>me say I am no expert but have some knowledge) reveals it to be consistent
>with WED teaching. Let me share the Aerojet six sigma objectives here in
>Sacramento.

>1. Identify and Remove Defects in our processes
>2. Increase capacity through better yields
>3. Identify and Remove variation in our processes
>4. Reduce complexity in our processes

In my humble opinion, this is consistent with the teachings of Deming. It is nothing more nor anything less than an excellent outline of a continuous process improvement and variability reduction program.

>At its heart is a simple mathematical statement: Six Sigma Capabilities
>will yield 3.4 defects in every one million opportunities to make a mistake.
>It is an approach to pinpointing and reducing process variation and other
>sources of defects (quality loss function).

And this is where, in my opinion, our thinking begins to go astray. Motorola 6-sigma has taken an excellent concept and reduced it with a simple but flawed statistical analysis. First, it assumes that the collected data is normally distributed, independent, randomly collected and rational. I will also suggest the assumption is that the data is taken from a process that is statistically in control, i.e., is predictable. Second, it assumes that process means can drift in time by +/- 1.5-sigma. At the very best, again in my opinion, both assumptions are weak and highly questionable. Let me explain why.

Consider the first set of assumptions.

Normality: When we collect data, usually in the form of SPC charts, we know from the initial work of Shewhart that the requirement of normality is not necessary. While a desired ideal condition, the process is established on a rational economic basis that does not require normally distributed data. In fact, I often find the data in question does not
appear to be normally distributed.

For the uninitiated, I suggest any of Wheeler's books on SPC as an excellent resource for the argument that normality is not needed, even though statisticians argue that in the case of x-bar/r charts, the averaging of the individual sample means forces the data into a normal distribution (Central Limit Theorem). Wheeler clearly demonstrates that non-normal distributions fall reasonably well within the limits obtained using Shewhart's approach.

Independent, randomly collected and rational: For most of the applications we work with, I find that process sampling is not random nor are the measurements within the sampling always independent. Samples are most often taken from the same portion of the "test bed" and frequently without considering their relationship to each other. Once again, if one considers that SPC looks at variation caused by common cause sources and tries to identify, for removal, special cause sources, it is a process which allows for these "mistakes."

Process is predictable: Nothing I have read in Motorola 6-sigma documents specifically mentions "in control" processes. However, the tone of the commentary does indicate they may have had this issue in consideration.

But, I say this with tongue in cheek because of the issue I have to take with the second big assumption.

Drift of the process mean: The several documents I have from Motorola do not treat this issue in detail. At best, the comment is that there is data to support the assumption. I have never been able to find anyone at Motorola who could provide me with this evidence. And, the few references provided in at least two documents are obscure. At least to me, they have been unavailable on interlibrary loan as they date back to the 1940s and 1950s. Furthermore, they are related to tolerancing studies, not process studies. Without these references, one cannot judge how well the data supports the contention, if they are in fact valid or simple observations/assumptions used to drive the tolerancing study. Comments I have received indicate the latter is probably close to the truth.

Now, if one looks at what SPC says, a stable, in control process should have a steady process mean and stable process limits. Within those limits, common cause sources of variation will produce samples that indicate the process average varies +/- 3-sigma. If this is what Motorola's experts were describing as process drift then immediately one can see there is a disagreement.

Others argue, no, that is short term drift and what Motorola is proposing is long term drift. Well, I contend, if a process drifts from its mean, long term, then there must be an internal trend that will be picked up as a signal indicating something unusual has happened. There is a process change due to a special source cause of variation and it has to be identified and removed. In such case, if the process is producing a drift of the magnitude +/- 1.5-sigma, then the process is not in control.

Now, I suppose, you the readers are asking, what does all this mean. To me it means the underlying basis from which the 3.4 ppm "goal" has been calculated, is a weak set of assumptions. Thus the goal itself is meaningless. To pursue this further, the entire concept behind the calculation of this "fraction nonconforming" is exactly the same as that driving the calculation of capability indices. These require the same assumptions of normally distributed, independent, random, rational data taken from processes that are demonstrated to be in control. In fact, if the conditions hold true, one can impute "fraction nonconforming" values directly from the indices.

In my opinion, the Motorola approach is similar to using a Cpk index for the calculation. Thus one can pursue the argument in the same manner used for discussing problems with that capability index. To calculate the index, one needs to estimate the process average and standard deviation. In my understanding, this puts a bias on the index and, it places even more stringent need for the underlying data to be normally distributed as the Central Limit Theorem does not hold. Since the indices are variables, and not constants, a single value has no meaning without confidence limits. Unless the underlying data is precisely normal, etc. there is no way to determine these confidence limits. Thus, any "fraction nonconforming" value determined is meaningless.

Because the Motorola calculations are based on the same input, unless the underlying data can be shown to be compliant with the assumptions, calculation of a "fraction nonconforming" value has no meaning. If one now adds the question of reliability in the allowance for "drift" of the process mean, the entire exercise becomes open to challenge.

As an example, if one assumes the underlying data is not normally distributed but can be described by the closely related Burr distribution (both are bell shaped curves but the Burr distribution has a slight skewness to the right at the top of the distribution) and both are perfectly centered, then the "fraction nonconforming" for a normal distribution is 2 parts per billion. The equivalent value calculated for the Burr distribution is 0.31 parts per million. The difference is slightly more than two orders of magnitude.

Most 6-sigma programs focus on the 3.4 ppm goal, measuring yields looking to reduce defects down to that target level. When the measure does not meet expectations and the process looks only at the ppm defects, the output being measured, the program fails. If we would stick with the four considerations Aerojet focuses on,

> 1. Identify and Remove Defects in our processes
> 2. Increase capacity through better yields
> 3. Identify and Remove variation in our processes
> 4. Reduce complexity in our processes

as outlined by Mariani, identify the key processes producing defects and control the key process parameter for each of those processes and forget the 3.4 ppm metric, we would all be better off -- and probably defect rates would be considerably less than that figure of merit.

David T. Novick

From: "Murphy, Kevin P (GEAE)"
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:44:41 -0400
Subject: RE: Jim McKinley's Post "Six Sigma on the rise"

"I believe until dissuaded the use of WED with six sigma can be a powerful tool."

What is gained by adding Six Sigma to the work of WED?

In my opinion, statistically nothing. The mathematical approach to calculating "sigma level" is somewhat controversial and based on specification limits, an older view of quality. Maybe a "six sigma" defect level is right for your process, maybe not. Why not more than six sigma? If a loss function indicates, why not less? That is if you can properly define a "sigma level" for a process. I don't think too many statisticians would say that Six Sigma has added anything significant to their toolbox.

The success of Six Sigma, in my opinion, is the allocation of resources and support that is given to it, which is really more like a change in the organizational structure, so we have companies that actually pay a lot of attention to quality. Maybe it has added something to the management toolbox. And that is a part of what we are after, isn't it?

Those interested in more should refer to the DEN archives, as a lengthy discussion on Six Sigma was held just a few months ago.

-------End Snip-------

Regards,
Don

Good post, Don.

-------Begin Snip-------
From: James Robert Crow
To: den.list
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:54:15 -0400
Subject: Six Sigma

Hello Group:

It would appear that six sigma is in violation of Dr Demings teaching in the following areas.

Beware of setting numerical goals or targets. Is not 3.4 errors per million a numerical goal or target? How is this different from managing by the numbers?

Drive out fear. If I know that I will be judged and in fact my future may hinge of my ability to hit the goal then I may attempt to fudge the numbers to save my career. I may also become a tyrant to my staff.

A local bank which just happens to be the 10 largest bank in the US has implemented a six sigma program and is experiencing some success. In the first real year to the program they can document a savings to the bank of over $500K. However some things are coming to light which may indicate that the program is in trouble. Departments that say they have achieved six sigma quality and have reported no errors in six months, according to their external customers have not changed and errors are still a significant problem. This has been found to be true in a number of cases.

There is pressure from management for results, and the department heads are giving them what they want. Fear is being driven in, not out of the organization.

Perhaps another problem with six sigma is that it is not a continual quality improvement process. Rather is in a goal in and of itself, and once achieved you can relax. It does not deal with method, but rather simply sets the goal and leaves it to the individial or group to achieve. Indeed it may be possible and in some cases even desirable to achieve much higher levels of quality. Up until I began working as a consultant I worked with a Japanese company. At one time our quality was such that we have one defective part in 500,000, and it still wasn't good enough for our customer. They wanted perfect quality or error free products, and came up to give us lessons on how to make quality products.

Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:07:53 EDT
Subject: Six Sigma On the Rise--In the Language that Executives can

In a message dated 4/25/99 12:59:28 AM, SOPKrules wrote:

<<we can try to enhance these "flawed" approaches by bringing the thinking
embodied in the System of Profound Knowledge. There are always opportunities
to influence people when you talk about the interaction of the parts making
the whole, variation partitioned into common and special causes and the
seeming fact that no matter how much we believe what we have to work with is
only theory and can be wrong. >>

I believe that Bob Mason is right on point with his comment, as was Grant Blair in his post concerning the 3 requirements for applying Six Sigma:

1. Understanding your customer's requirements through designed experiments (or equivalent)

2. Understand your measurement system using Gage R&R (or equivalent)

3. Understanding and improving your process through designed experiments (or equivalent). Processes left unattended will certainly drift!

Grant's argument for 6 sigma are fundamentally the same as Dr. Deming's arguments for SoPK with one difference: Dr. Deming challenged me to explain the quest for six-sigma/SoPK in words and language that senior executives and line managers could understand. We cannot hope to influence those who we confuse with technospeak. The following is a summation of the six-sigma/SoPK philosophy in simple terms that leaders can understand and deal with, starting with the three arguments of Grant Blair. As suggested by our moderator Jim, I have tried to focus on the Theory of Variation in this post and will expand upon it in a follow-up (called Part #2):

o Understanding the causes of variation and how to respond appropriately--covered partially in this post

o Understanding tampering; how leaders, despite their good intentions, can increase variation--will be covered in Part #2.

1. Probability theory and scientific theory provide a good foundation. In discussions with Dr. Deming on this subject, my conclusions were that while the natural variation of a process can be defined by three-sigma (Shewhart), the design tolerance should be twice as large as the natural tolerance (my words, not Deming's). This meant instead of 2.7 defects per thousand (2,700 defects per million), six-sigma quality translated to 3.4 defects per million, which is now a global standard for quality measurement variation in a language that management can understand.

2. Normal distribution theory provides a stronger foundation. Product specifications and process capability form an unbreakable link between design, manufacturing, and quality. If product specs and components are good--not too tight and not too loose--manufacturing units will use their capability of the processes and equipment to produce good, standard, high-quality parts and assemblies, although a small percentage may be non-conforming. However, on the other hand, if product specs are too tight, the product will be seen as too difficult to make by the manufacturing units, and a larger percentage of variation--with non-conforming products--may result.

3. Practically speaking....Six-Sigma works. However, close tolerances are often hard to achieve, hard to hold, and hard to measure, which can make them very costly. Although customers using such products often appreciate the apparent high quality, the products are very often difficult to maintain. On the other hand, leaders must be cautious about product specs that are too loose. In this case, process capability and assembly of product will be easy to achieve, but fitness for use may be negatively affected, resulting in frequent breakdowns and repairs.

Conclusion: In advancing the teachings of Dr. Deming, we must be careful to present the issue of variation in a language that managers, designers, and manufacturers can readily understand, so that they may consider these issues very carefully in determining product specs and processes to achieve the quality objectives of the organization. By following the above approach, I was able to enroll the senior leadership of a 700 employee social services agency working on behalf of the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled. Not only did they achieve impressive results, a savings of 1.5 million annually was also brought to their bottom line. So you see, this stuff also works for those who are not *putting bumpers on cars* equally well, if the language of Six-sigma/SoPK is put into the language of management.

Frank Voehl

-------End Snip-------

The problem with the 1.5 sigma bias (from the ideal value) assumption is that when Six Sigma is used as a quality measure, much effort is likely to be spent trying to reduce the process variance (so that the standard deviation represents only one twelwth of the specification interval) whereas adjusting the process to the desired value would often be a less expensive strategy. This is even truer when the response is autocorrelated (which often happens in practice) and the process needs to be be continuously adjusted. A 1.5 sigma bias represents a significant deviation from the target.
One should first adjust and monitor the process using Statistical Process Control or Engineering Process control to ensure that this bias is eliminated.
The other problem is that six sigma is often based on exhortation rather on statistical techniques for variability reduction (such as DoE).

Also see:
Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2000)
and
Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same? (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3823)

First my answer is no, I don't want to fight. I just wanted to share some things I remember.

The inventor of "6 Sigma" was Dr. Shainin. He was doing work for Motorola. The problem they were trying to solve was how to relate process variability to product specifications. The solution was the Capability index. This came in handy for setting priorities when there are many processes and product specs in an organization. When I spoke to him, he became very angry (he had a tendency to be rather intense), when someone mentioned that a capability index of 1.5 was needed to compensate for process drift. (I have a tendency to put process drift in the calculations as variability.)

Somewhere and somehow Six Sigma stopped being a fairly dry process measurement and started being a program. All the hoopla about Black Belts seems strange. I like it in some ways because managers know right away what a Black Belt is, but have difficulty understanding how an Applied Statistician can help them.

I hope this helps.

Tom

I've said it before; six sigma is nothing more than the old TQM approach with a new name.

Sam,
I agree. TQM used to be something else.

I remember the first time I heard term. I was working in a technical group that was responsible for process improvement. A fax came in from a person that worked for a similar group at Ford Motor Co. The message indicated that Ford's improvements did NOT improve profitability. They found it was because the next step (internal customer) didn't take advantage of the improvement. They also found there wasn't much productive cooperation and going on from department to department. They decided to try a new approach called "Total Quality".

When I was working on this, it was another dry tool consisting of flow diagrams and talking to hourly workers to find out how improvements could translate into reduced steps. Total Quality demonstrations consisted mostly of successful tool applications and its impact on the internal and external customer.

I quit that job (regret doing that) and took a job where the "Total Quality Department" was organized under Human Resources. I was shocked when I went to their Total Quality exhibits and found a pink bunny beating the Total Quality drum!

Seems there are a few people out there with great marketing skills that take tools, convert them into glitzy, over-sold Programs and make a lot of consulting money. Also there are clients that are interested in flash instead of cash. I prefer to take tools and integrate them into day to day processes.

Best Wishes,

Tom

Any new thoughts with regard to the validity of six sigma?

Any new thoughts with regard to the validity of six sigma?
It may not be new to some here :bigwave: , as I have posted these through the DEN and ASQ Net before, but here is my current list of concerns about the validity of six sigma:

1. It relies on numerical targets. In order to know if you are "six sigma capable" there must be some target. Granted, if I have a customer requirement for a certain dimensional tolerance, I can agree that operating at the six sigma level (CPK of 2) is probably optimal if nothing else is known. Taguchi methods would be better, but the cost of doing the Taguchi data gathering and analysis could exceed the cost of simply getting to CPK 2. However, if I am a "Six Sigma Company" now I must tie numerical targets to everything. So more time is put into coming up with targets than in improving the process. Violation of Deming's point 11 - eliminate numerical goals.

2. The whole 1.5 sigma shift mystery. If you are properly running a control chart, including a "complete" set of trend detection rules, there is no reason to believe that the average can shift by 1.5 sigma and not be detected. Granted, there will be some undetected movement, but this is all part of Shewhart's original treatise on Economic control - balancing false alarms and failure to detect.

3. Six sigma only focuses on visible numbers, primarily costs. Short term costs. Cut the input (ie people) rather than increase output. Suboptimization of stove pipes. Rip Stauffer sent me a great story on this that I included in an ASQ Quality Progress article over the summer. Violation of Deming's Point 1 - create constancy of purpose, create jobs.

4. Six sigma focuses its training (which is very expensive) on only a few people. Generally I have found them to be the "fair haired boys and girls", the up-and-coming managers. Certainly not the trained engineers and statisticians. And the workers get left behind. Anti-OSHA Voluntary Protection Program. Violation of Deming's point 14 - the transformation is Everybody's job.

And if ASQ makesJune "six sigma month" again I think I will explode. :blowup:

Steve,
Are you aware of Deming's thoughts (If any) regarding the validity of 6 sigma?
Wallace. :)

Steve,
Are you aware of Deming's thoughts (If any) regarding the validity of 6 sigma?
Wallace. :)

Six Sigma really hit after his death in 1992. I suspect he would have been skeptical of it (he was skeptical of the Baldrige award, heck, he was skeptical of a lot of things).

I did cross-reference to his 14 points, and I suspect the MBO/numerical targets, and the focus upon "visible figures only" would invoke his displeasure.

Dr. Deming was a supporter of Taguchi methods in Out of the Crisis. He did state "meeting specifications is not sufficient". On page 314 of OOC he does state "The capability of a process can be achieved and confirmed by use of a control chart, not by a distribution". So all the various calculations of ppm and cpk I believe Dr. Deming would have been against.

But I can only suppose. I have not successfully "channeled" Dr. Deming yet. :notangel:

I have just posted to another thread in this forum on a newsletter you may be interested in regarding Six Sigma. It comes from John Seddon, and I think refers mainly to Six Sigma in service organisations.

I have attempted to post the newsletter as an attachment, but I could not as it already resides in here What's next for Six sigma? An established culture? The Future of Six Sigma (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8294&page=2&pp=15).

Ilias

Steve,

I won't go into a point-by-point analysis on some of your thoughts, but I think your over-generalizing.

While I'm not totally Deming fluent, his ideas, opinions, & practices, while undoubtedly very good, are not immutable by any means. If an action is contrary to a Deming principle then it's just that, contrary. Differing views is how growth occurs.

>The 6-S only focusing on costs & short term at that, and only training the fair-haired is quite contrary to the 6-S BB training I've received & experience since. Actually I was rather surprised when I read your posts above...doesn't sound like the 6-S that I know. My trainer was a GE engineer that was there from the beginning & now he & a partner have struck out on their own. Your take on 6-S seems more related to the shortfalls of a particular implementation than the philosophy & practice as a whole. Implementations are done by people & subject to their strengths as well as their weaknesses.

>Regarding your: "The capability of a process can be achieved and confirmed by use of a control chart, not by a distribution". So all the various calculations of ppm and cpk I believe Dr. Deming would have been against."

Makes me want to avoid Deming rather than embrace him. A control chart gives one view of the process & a distribution is just another view. With reasonable software either view is instantaneous and requires no effort. Cpk, Ppk, & ppm are just numerical summaries of the data. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything inherently evil here. There are forests & there are trees.


Ilias,

I read the lean service document yesterday. It was a little too sarcastic for my taste & looses validity because of this. It seems the author is trying to sell something(LEAN) & he's selling-down on 6-S. If you're selling an alternative it sort of removes you from unbiased author status.

___

I really don't want to be in a "defender of 6-S" position, but some of the comments I read here on 6-S don't seem overly "fair & even" or, in some cases, informed. I'm not personally married to 6-S any more than other approaches, but I do understand what it is on a first-person basis. 6-S is a valid & useful approach, as are others. It's just a matter of using the right tool at the right time for the job at hand. If the Goal is achieved, & people are generally pleased with the result, does the path matter that much?

Steve,
Makes me want to avoid Deming rather than embrace him. A control chart gives one view of the process & a distribution is just another view. With reasonable software either view is instantaneous and requires no effort. Cpk, Ppk, & ppm are just numerical summaries of the data. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything inherently evil here. There are forests & there are trees.
?
Your approach is evil. It comes from statistical fineprint. When a distribution is created, there is an assumption that the data is "independent". In other words, one datum is good as another when predicting a process. If the distribution (histogram) was created with trends or shifts, the inferences, process capabilities are harmful and decisions are incorrect. The histogram may look normal.

I'm not picking on this post, but I am concerned with results being produced without an awareness of statistical theory. I see it too often in this forum and others.

I know, I'm going to take my chill pill now..... :)

Tom

evil...hmmm

You're right. Everyone works off their own palette & I glossed over some givens for my data. In my world data is independent & I take care of pre-processing prior to analysis & making conclusions. I guess the point was that once basic criteria are met both analyses are useful. Each highlights aspects that are not as easily seen in the other. If both analyses are basically "free" why not use them.

>The 6-S only focusing on costs & short term at that, and only training the fair-haired is quite contrary to the 6-S BB training I've received & experience since. Actually I was rather surprised when I read your posts above...doesn't sound like the 6-S that I know. My trainer was a GE engineer that was there from the beginning & now he & a partner have struck out on their own. Your take on 6-S seems more related to the shortfalls of a particular implementation than the philosophy & practice as a whole. Implementations are done by people & subject to their strengths as well as their weaknesses.

Mikel Harry is a PhD statistician and knowledgeble in many quality techniques and philosphies. As Jack Welch became more associated with championing Six Sigma, the statistics became less important and the emphasis on the bottom line results became more visible. I posted some of Jack's thoughts on what he understood Six Sigma was in an earlier posting.

I became concerned about GE's approach to Six Sigma mainly because GE and some other companies started to use it to promote their "fast trackers".
From Welch's book Jack:Straight from the Gut:

"We told the business CEOs to make their best people Six Sigma leaders. That meant taking our people off existing jobs and giving them two-year project assignments to qualify them for ... Black Belts."

When GE made this decision, they also changed their incentive compensation system to reward people by giving stock option grants to employees who were in Black Belt training. Again, quoting Welch: "We also used the stock option program for Black Belts to smoke out the weakest links.... Overall, Six Sigma is changing the fundamental culture of the company and the way we develop people - especially our 'high potentials'."

Welch did become more enlightened in the later years of Six Sigma but if you were a GE employee, wanted to advance your career and wanted some bonus money then you had to become a black belt. The statistically oriented and quality professionals went along for the ride and some even became consultants and made more money than staying at GE.

Bill Pflanz

It all sounds very nice and fine, but when I read posts on subjects like Six Sigma (6-S) I am always left with some questions.

1. Okay, it works for GE and it clearly has pleased ASQ. Many organizations have apparently used the system with satisfaction. However, it all seems very far away from here. The majority of businesses are small businesses. The larger share of manufacturing processes are not in control, ever, never mind reaching six or even four sigma. What is the world at large supposed to do with all this high flying talk?

2. I have heard of 6-S projects that clashed with one another, such as aspects of a business that were outsourced to each other, at the same time, unknown to the other. Oops. Baldrige and Kaizen are supposed to avoid this problem through calmer, more pragmatic approaches that look at the past as well as the expected future. Where are the stories about how the past 6-S projects are continuing to perform pleasurably over time, especially organization-wide?

3. My one near-here example of a person with 6-S black belt (he was certified in a local GE shop) received quite a tepid appraisal from his underling. Now it is true that opinions vary, but since he soon left his position I gather that hearts in this case were clearly not won either by management, the "Average Joe" worker or both. The BB was hired on like a star quarterback to perform his wonders, and in the end his reputation suffered. Isn't 6-S being used as just another initiative and selling point for buyer, seller and employee?

My take on this whole thing is that it is the basic quality tools repackaged. After TQM's black eye, Quality needed a makeover. It needed more focus in application, a more standardized approach and modern (quick profits) appeal. 6-S delivers that. And so be it, but my concern is that, to use an analogy, it is being used as invasive surgery when good diet, hygiene and healthy habits would help the organization perform at its natural best.

Jennifer

My take on this whole thing is that it is the basic quality tools repackaged. After TQM's black eye, Quality needed a makeover. It needed more focus in application, a more standardized approach and modern (quick profits) appeal. 6-S delivers that. And so be it, but my concern is that, to use an analogy, it is being used as invasive surgery when good diet, hygiene and healthy habits would help the organization perform at its natural best.

Very nicely put, Jennifer. :applause:

KMAAA,
You seem to be knowledgeble and well versed in 6S. I have asked this question before and perhaps you could provide some information.
Is there any evidence,actual evidence from a real company, that shows a return on investment.i.e., increased revenue, fewer returns, increased customer base?

Again, I don't want to be the defender of all things 6-S, but I have at least gone through the BB training (from two former GE Master BB who moved on to presumably greener pastures, consulting & training)


Bill,

I haven't read Jack's books, but I've have read & seen interviews with him. He has a very clear "perform or die" focus. As I understand it he laid out a metric of being #1 or #2 in a market or the entire division was gone. Great motivational tool until everyone gets burned out and says, "see ya, bub bye". I think your points are more a indictment of Jack Welch than 6-S. Had GE not had 6-S I think Jack would have behaved the same way...just used a different hammer. In my company (not a 6-S company & has no intention currently to be one) we recently introduced "Topgrading". Google "Topgrading" and you'll see similarities between what Jack twisted 6-S into & the goal of Topgrading.

Jennifer,
Good post.

re: 1) You're right, most businesses are small. I'm not so sure most of their processes are completely out of control, but I would wonder how many of them actually know where their processes are or understand, in a statistical sense, what their processes are about. While 6-S is a nice term, 6-S itself doesn't mandate +/- 6S in all processes...it does mandate that you understand what your capability is or will be & that it's in your best interest to get it as high as possible, within economic limitations. In fact GE had an average of around +/- 3S...from what my trainer said. What 6-S is about, mostly, is very tight project management & using quantitative & statistical means to move projects forward. 6-S also makes a very clear point of taking a systems approach to fixing a process or developing a new one. Regardless of the product/process/service that is developed(or fixed), process capability will be a concern when the product hits the market. That being the case...why wouldn't one want to consider process & measurement capability early in the project? If your best estimates, early on, indicate your process capability will be terrible or uncontrollable, or far too expensive then why would one want to spend the time & resources completeing the development program only to produce a product/process that you can't make money on? This isn't "high flying" as much as it is "prudent".

re: 2) There isn't program/practice made that prevents people from being dumb. There's no part of 6-S that says..."ignore what everyone else is doing & stay focused on your little world..." 6-S, or any approach, is only as good as the people practicing it. 6-S plus a good practioner wouldn't allow these examples to occur as they'd be looking at the big picture as well as the project focus. "Where are the stories about how the past 6-S projects are continuing to perform pleasurably over time, especially organization-wide?" Ahhh! a 6-S approach! "In God we trust, everyone else bring data!" I don't have any successful stories...I had the training...I understand & use many of the tools (none of which are 6-S orginals). Every program (LEAN, TOC, Kaizen, TQM....) has a slide in the introductory presentation..."this is how ACME Mfg saved $400MM dollars in the first two years...." Every program will have "great results" claims...even if they are stated...should you believe them? What is the basis of the claims? What was measured? Believe nothing you read & only half of what you see.

re 3) Yep. Like anything else someone can turn a buck on...lots of hype as the marketeers swarm. Again, I don't think this reflects so much on the actual, functional work someone would do in a 6-S effort as much this reflects on the people thenselves. It's no secret that management doesn't "get" alot of things...including CQE's & what they desire, or TQM. or LEAN or..... Take any star quarterback (of unknown skill) and send him/her against another team & you have a lost ball game. One person can't do it...it takes a team. CEO's that come into a company and promptly run it into the ground are not rare...does it follow that are CEOs are useless? No, there are good ones & ones that really should take up another line of work.


"My take on this whole thing is that it is the basic quality tools repackaged. After TQM's black eye, Quality needed a makeover."

Yep, absolutely. TQM did OK where I work, but if it takes a new coat of paint to get the tools & philosophy of doing things right in practice...I don't know that it's such a bad thing, whatever works. In the music industry people stopped buying plastic albums, the industry sales were flat...along comes a 79 cent to produced CD that sells for 18 bucks & everyone re-buys all the music they've ever owned. Is the music bad? Or is someone trying to turn a buck?

"It needed more focus in application, a more standardized approach and modern (quick profits) appeal. 6-S delivers that."

With all due respect, you don't understand 6-S. "quick profits" and "Six Sigma" is an oxymoron. A formal 6-S program is a pricey effort. The training suggests it's primarily used on "significant to the bottom line" projects. 6-S is more about doing it right the first time so you don't need to do it over..and looking far enough down known & expected roads (process capability, measurement stability & capability, understanding the true variables in your process, optimization of the output using those variables, testing process robustness to raw material variation...........) such that profits will indeed come or stop the work & move on.

"...when good diet, hygiene and healthy habits would help the organization perform at its natural best." This is closer to the 6-S that I was trained in. I can only speak from my experience. "Natural best" doesn't mean "entropy rules".

Sam,
re: "Is there any evidence,actual evidence from a real company, that shows a return on investment.i.e., increased revenue, fewer returns, increased customer base?"

See above. There are claims from all programs..the question is whether you can believe any of them. If anyone disagrees that better process capability & process control might be connected to fewer returns then I'd wonder what their doing in "Quality". I think if people would understand the nuts & bolts of what 6-S is, and not judge it at arms length from the hype that reaches them, they wouldn't wait to accept it based only on success stories. Simple logic & understanding the tools would answer their questions about it. It's tight project management where you try not to make assumptions & favor gathering data (i.e. knowledge, understanding) about the process.
________

It seems there are many people that willing to nuke 6-S without having at least had the training...I never would have guessed there was such an anti- movement. I'm not suggesting 6-S is the only option that is useful or that all companies drop what their doing and start a formal implementation ($$$$). There are lots of approaches available. I'm giving a rather large presentation to our Executive Committee on Monday...I'm suggesting to them, with supporting data, that we do need a better & improved Quality program. I'm not suggesting a full fledge 6-S adoption. Actually what I am presenting is a program I assembled from the ground up & inside out using good process understanding & the appropriate statistics. Pick or design a system that works and go for it. If it needs adjustment down the road...start adjusting. Tom Peters: "More at bats, more hits".

With all due respect, you don't understand 6-S. "quick profits" and "Six Sigma" is an oxymoron.

This is very possible. I will confess that my largest exposure to 6S is the unilateral hype fed to us all. I've never been in an organization that actually used 6S. In fact, I've been lucky to work in places that used written procedures. Most of them run on verbal instructions, even the Boeing supplier in a large metropolitan area. This was scary, but it was quite revealing in that it made me realize I can't blame my challenges on geography; that is, the small town aspect of doing business in Maine. At that point I was able to readjust my thinking about what approach was appropriate to my work.

Some people don't like it when I say their processes are not in control, but I stand by that. When I say "control" I mean the ability to take one's hands off the dials and things that tweak a process into submission to will; it's predictable, even given changes such as tool wear, temperature coefficients etc. Even the largest, state-of-the-art facility I have worked at did not have this capability.

Their personalities were the most limiting factors, however. None of these people, in any of the organizations outside of the submarine Navy had the ability to tightly control an improvement initiative, whatever it was called. Their measurement, analytical and introspective abilities were inferior to the need.

Now let's be clear that I support the 6S movement. If it gets the job done properly, but barks differently than TQM, I don't care what you call it. I understand that there are new, hot breeds of dogs these days: Poodles crossed with Labs, etc., are finding favor. Like these "new breeds," the Quality elements within 6S are still there; if they do well, I am happy.

I have just about given up ever finding placement in an organization where I can operate at my potential. I have taken a position as Education Technician in my local school district, where I teach special ed students for about $13K a year.

I struggle with this humble beginning, but I have a plan. It's pretty clear to me that the awareness level in general is so low that training should happen in the middle and postsecondary school levels. Both upcoming business owners and work forces are not getting the training needed to use Quality in their enterprises at large. I don't know for sure I'm doing the right thing, but I intend to do my part to raise the skill levels for the greater benefit.

Jennifer

Bill,

I haven't read Jack's books, but I've have read & seen interviews with him. He has a very clear "perform or die" focus. As I understand it he laid out a metric of being #1 or #2 in a market or the entire division was gone. Great motivational tool until everyone gets burned out and says, "see ya, bub bye". I think your points are more a indictment of Jack Welch than 6-S. Had GE not had 6-S I think Jack would have behaved the same way...just used a different hammer. In my company (not a 6-S company & has no intention currently to be one) we recently introduced "Topgrading". Google "Topgrading" and you'll see similarities between what Jack twisted 6-S into & the goal of Topgrading.


KMAAA,

Thanks for the additional input on Six Sigma. I felt you gave a fair assessment of the pros and cons of its followers. I did take your suggestion about googling for information on Topgrading since I had not heard that term used before.

After reading about topgrading, I agree that it describes Welch's philosophy on hiring and firing people. Just for the record, I did not take Welch's comments out of context. All of the quotes were from the chapter on Six Sigma. Apparently, Welch combined various ideas into one GE approach that he called Six Sigma.

Most of the articles on topgrading referred to Bradford Smart, a consultant who advises Fortune 500 CEOs. A lot of the concept is meant to be applied to executive hiring but could be applied company wide. The intent is to rank everyone as A, B, C players and either improve the B and C players or get rid of them. Assuming it is possible and if carried to the extreme, the organization would only have A players and be the best. So much for the normal curve.

There was a lot of name dropping of his clients touting the success of topgrading which probably helped to get new clients. Some of the names were the same names that Welch dropped in his book as friends of his. Consultants have become very creative and clever in coming up with new practices that can be sold to CEOs.

You learn something new everyday. Thanks for the tip.

Bill

KMAAA,

A lot of the concept is meant to be applied to executive hiring but could be applied company wide. The intent is to rank everyone as A, B, C players and either improve the B and C players or get rid of them. Assuming it is possible and if carried to the extreme, the organization would only have A players and be the best. So much for the normal curve.

Bill

Gee Bill,
One problem is they are hiring players instead of workers. Also, wouldn't be easier to fire the executive that hired the 'B,C' players? ;)
Best Wishes,

Tom

Gee Bill,
One problem is they are hiring players instead of workers. Also, wouldn't be easier to fire the executive that hired the 'B,C' players? ;)
Best Wishes,

Tom

Tom,

Another management strategy is to always remove your bottom 10% non-performers. After about 7 years of using that strategy, you have either replaced your entire workforce or you have fired people that you have hired during that time. I don't know if the management consultants expected any of these strategies to be applied to the executive team they were advising.

Bill

I just read the 2003 Youden Address, "The Embedded Statistician" by Gerald Hahn.

Interesting discussion & worth the read. Gerald gives a good description of Six Sigma from a 1000-foot view.

The address begins on page 5 and runs through page 17:
*** DEAD LINK REMOVED ***

RE: "3. An attempt to understand: Electronic systems, that has been my living for 27 years, have very complex interactions between many types of material processes. When product design times have become extremely short (3 to 6 months) and in practice the most competitive strategic tool (Deming's 1st Quality Prong: Innovation), there is simply not enough time to find all special causes in the upstream processes before it is time to launch the next model."

While it is true that these pressures exist, what I have come to find is that a small fraction of the components and process technologies used for such systems are responsible for most of the detectable and service affecting failures (sound familiar?). As early as the chip simulation phase of NPI, known risks and areas of excess variation are revealed. However, they are not always corrected and risks may be taken without full impacts being realized. Also, most chip manufacturers / ASIC foundaries are dealing with low profit margins and often resist process and material science best practices which are readily available within open source literature. [Now contrast this with Intel - now why do Intel do so well and why do Intel based systems which minimize lower tier components have generally fewer problems? Intel are known to be a bit simulation happy, plus they benefitted from early reliability development work of Dr. Robert MacDonald, who founded their processes. Best practices stuck and now we see a real success story. But I digress. Sadly, most device suppliers are not like Intel!]

Later, as the schedule gets inevitably compressed, and major system failures occur, the cost and time required for the fixes are even greater; waivers may still occur due to "time to market" considerations. Dr. Kos Ishii at Stanford U made some models showing how incrementing spending and effort during the earliest phases, in order to allow Design for Six Sigma, FMEA, extensive simulation, Monte Carlo analysis of CTQ/CTF parameter chains and dependencies, and TRIZ, or things like it, can actually work to shorten time to market and make the ROI point earlier.

Most of this stuff is cultural and not always a result of the complexity of the technology. It is difficult to set aside the "black arts" mentality about complex electrical systems which got us to the computer age but is now a liability.

There is still so much work to be done! :whip:

Mark
:)

Well gang, my contract/consulting assignment is coming to an abrupt (and unexpected) end tomorrow. . . I started networking with some local Guru's and firms. Believe it or not, I was given the number of a gentleman to get grant money to of all things. . . earn a 6S BB. . . . Oh well. . . go figure. . . I hope I don't hurt myself. . . will probably turn my lower lip to hamburg biting it. . .

It's interesting that you were given a number of a gentleman to...help you pursue a grant?

The process takes awhile, but I've run a research project funded by USDA SBIR grant program. It can be rewarding.

This is a very hard time to be a Quality professional, so I would look hard at all avenues. It may be time to get creative, walk the road less traveled.