How would the "Six Sigma" philosophy be best quantified? "Statistical technique", Continuous Improvement activity, Lean Manufacturing, or "all of the above?"

I don't know about lean manufactuiring, but 6 sigma fits Statistical Techniques and Continuous Improvement.

An FYI:

-> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:44:22 -0400
-> From: Dan Rand
-> Subject: 6 Sigma history
->
-> Let me add another perspective to Six Sigma. IBM executives started
-> visiting Motorola headquarters shortly after they won their Baldrige, to
-> benchmark and pick up some of their quality practices. First on the list
-> was Six Sigma. I was an internal statistical methods consultant and
-> quality engineer at IBM in Rochester, MN at this time. We were forced to
-> adapt Six Sigma at our site, even though we had the same concerns that have
-> been listed in recent discussions in this forum. Six Sigma was present, but
-> not dominant, by the time our IBM site won a Baldrige in 1990.
->
-> Six Sigma was being implemented corporate-wide at the insistence of some
-> highly placed IBM executives. There were complaints and discussions
-> throughout IBM until the leading technologist in the company called 15-20
-> statisticians and quality managers together to publish a position paper on
-> Six Sigma. We were encouraged to believe that our opinions and factual
-> evidence were going to get a hearing.
->
-> We expressed concern with Motorola s misuse of statistical terms, the thin
-> theoretical and practical evidence for the 1.5 sigma shift, and the dubious
-> means of counting defects and opportunities for defects. Our position
-> paper was finally regarded as too disruptive to IBM s progress in defect
-> reduction, which management wanted to credit to Six Sigma policies. The
-> position paper was never distributed beyond the team that created it.
->
-> Six Sigma is rarely mentioned around IBM anymore. It quietly disappeared
-> with the radical downsizing that took place from 1991-93, even though it
-> was always touted as not just another quality program. I believe its
-> disappearance did occur primarily because many of its champions either left
-> IBM, or had too many higher priorities left to cover. I left IBM in the
-> downsizing, along with 80statisticians).
->
-> Most interestingly, when I have run across Motorola employees in the years
-> since, they consistently state that there is still a passionate pursuit of
-> defect reduction and quality improvement at Motorola, which more or less
-> still occurs under the banner of Six Sigma. We might dismiss the whole Six
-> Sigma approach as sloganism, but we must realize that large corporations
-> necessarily put a simple label on programs that they want to implement
-> corporate-wide. Seemingly, everyone in Motorola knows just what you are
-> talking about when you mention Six Sigma, even if it is different than what
-> we quality experts and statisticians know it is. Their quality improvement
-> process has stood the test of time.
->
-> IBM could not sustain its Six Sigma program, probably because of business
-> factors. Every organization and their circumstances are a little
-> different. I respect General Electric s CEO and their attempt to fully
-> embrace quality improvement. They may succeed if they get their entire
-> workforce to approach quality improvement with a simple, tools oriented,
-> common sense process underneath the slogan of Six Sigma.
->
-> Daniel R. Rand
-> Consultant, Rand Quality Technologies

Thanks, Marc, for the information from IBM. Although I had heard a little about 6 Sigma and its successes in the past (mostly associated with Motorola), I'm trying to get much more intimately acquainted with it since my company's President asked me to. So far, I've seen much more of the "mixed emotions" as reported by IBM staffers than completely positive reports. I'm attending a 6-Sigma symposium next week and so should hear plenty of the "pros" of 6-sigma. However, I would also welcome additional input from the less biased "real world." That way, I can make the most informed recommendation as to the direction our company should proceed. We certainly don't want to foster a "flavor of the month" perception with our team members.

I know I went into this at length somewhere but I can't find where. I included the snippet as it pretty well states a view I feel has to be considered - one specific is the 'theroetical' 1.5 sigma shift which very, very often comes up. There are some real strong opinions on that shift.

I do have a copy of an internal Motorola booklet titled "Six Sigma Process Control" from 1993 but I can't post it or copy it because it's proprietary - internal to Motorola. It's almost 50 pages and is really informative. It's sorta a short version of a book I have from IBM's Quality Institute (approx. 200 pages). Both take a high level approace but IBM's is more extensive (even covers Design of Experiments!)

Anyway, hope the info helps. If you have an friends internal to Motorola you might try to pry a copy of their book. I got the IBM book some years ago (it's from November 1984) and can't remember where. It's a good one.

The point is - both books give parts of what QS9000 lingo calls APQP - which is just a good, sound business system - from product conception / contract review to end of product life. I can't stress highly enough the importance of a robust (for lack of a better word) design 'phase'. If you fail that phase control and things like 6 sigma won't mean much - you cripple yourself early.

Phew - I gotta get back to work!

Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 15:40:58 -0400
From: RNav
Subject: Re: FW: Six Sigma

In a message dated 4/27/99 11:36:44 AM, NML writes:

>Dear Mr Robert,
> we are a flow control equipment manufacturing
>engineering company with ISO 1901 accreditation. Two years ago we have
>started BPR in a big way and concentrated to improve key processes. How
>ever we have not improved the quality management process. Of late we
>have started getting more customer complaints signaling that quality is
>going down.
> can you throw some clarification on the following?
>* what are the organizational pre requisites to start the
> six sigma process?
>
>* is there any guide book that is practical and
>implementation oriented?
>
>* what role training should play in propagating six sigma
>movement?
>
>Thanks &regards
>
>N.Mahalingam
>Senior Deputy General Manager(BPR)
>AUDCO INDIA LIMITED
>CHENNAI-600 089
>INDIA

BPR is an interesting phenomenon. It is a powerful technique, but if not implement by including those you are being BPR'd, chaos can result, since bad feelings can be generated in the whole organization. But I stray:

"However we have not improved the quality management process. Of late we have started getting more customer complaints signaling that quality is going down."

With this statement, my take is that you BPR'd some processes, but never looked at how management works. If you change the processes, but management doesn't change they way they manage, that can lead to a lot of trouble. The new process may rely on a certain level of autonomy, and reduced cycle times. If management doesn't adjust to that, you just get into trouble at a reduced cycle time. In this aspect, I would focus management on having proper measures (unbiased by politics), reviewed periodically (monthly is good), and action plans to close gaps. This is essentially a page from Demings PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle for improvement).

"can you throw some clarification on the following? * what are the organizational pre requisites to start the six sigma process?"

The prerequisites are the same for any other type of systematic process improvement effort; *management understand of the changes that the new system will require *management leadership in implementing the change *unwaivering support when the road gets a little bumpy during the change *a focus on the process and achievable results, early wins help in the change process

"* is there any guide book that is practical and implementation oriented?"

I am currently not aware of a book, though I think some are in the offering. Motorola University has some books that may help. I would check with Amazon and check their offerings too. I would also review any and all books on change management. "The TEAM Handbook" by Peter Scholtes is a good implementation tools and a good overview.

"* what role training should play in propagating six sigma movement?"

It is absolutely vital. GE trains all managers who want to pursue a promotion and career with the company. They have three levels of training for their managers. One is "Black Belts" who receive extensive training (4 months of classroom and practical) and implementation experience. They have a 2 yr tour as a Black Belt and then move into a managers position and are expected to use what they learned in their new position. The other two levels are variations of OJT (On the Job Training).

The current practice is to train a select few for implementation and used them in a dedicated role to improve the business and train others in the methodology.

I hope this helps.

P.S. - In western culture, the last name is the family name, so to be formal and proper, the address would read Mr. Drensek, the informal would be Robert, but I usually go by Bob.

Robert Drensek, CQE, CQA, CRE, CMI
Quality Engineer

Good post!

Although I cannot recommend any of the titles (I have not read them), a lot of six sigma publications can be found at:

http://mu.motorola.com - Link was: /asp/listing.asp?mode=Books&category=1

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

One could achieve 100 sigma, (that's lots more sigmas than 6!), yet if the product you are producing cannot tolerate temperature changes, for example, then you will quickly be out of business. This is but one of the many flaws in this compilation of management, and statistical tools.

I have found the six sigma program to be a repackaged set of tools that did not work very will the first time around, and not likely to work the second. Mostly devoid of engineering and cost considerations, I find it problematic for use in hi-tech industry.

An article in the recent (winter) issue of "Automotive Excellence" concerning Six sigma states that 3 sigma produces 66,807 defects per million.
I'm confused, I always thought 3 sigma was approximately 2700 PPM. Is there a different way of selecting these figures, or was I just wrong all this time?

It would appear the author was referring to +/- 1.5 sigma, not +/- 3 sigma. Of course, I could be wrong.

Regards,

Don

I have recently been visiting a GE plastics plant in the Netherlands. My impression was that ‘six sigma' there, has more to do with continuous improvement, setting hard-to-achieve objectives and team leadership than with statistical techniques.
The capability indices (Cp, Cpk, Cpm) already provide effective metrics to assess a process performance.
Six Sigma assumes that the process deviates by 1.5 sigma (sigma is the standard deviation) from the desired value. Therefore Six Sigma corresponds to a Cp of 2, a Cpk of 1.5 and a Cpm of 1.11. The reason why Six Sigma does not perform so well in terms of Cpm is that, Cpm (rightly) gives a greater weight to the bias component from the desired value (1.5 sigma).
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 more effective and 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.
To reduce quality losses, one should first adjust and monitor the process using Statistical Process Control or Engineering Process control to ensure that the bias is eliminated.

Cp = (USL - LSL) / 6 sigma
where USL is the upper specification limit
and LSL is the lower specification limit
Sigma is the standard deviation

Cpk = Min {([USL - m]/3 sigma),([m - LSL]/3 sigma)}
where m is the average

Cpm = (USL - LSL) / [6(sigma²+(T-m)²)**0.5]
where T is the desired value

Nota bene : Please note that **0.5 means square root. I cannot convey the square root symbol.

Breyfogle's 1999 Excellent Book entitled IMPLEMENTING SIX SIGMA notes the following in Table S.

2,700 defects per million is the +/- 3 sigma rate for a centered process (i.e.-no 1.5 sigma shift).
66,811 defects per million is the +/- 3 sigma rate for shifted process (i.e.-including a 1.5 sigma shift).

This important question highlights a very important aspect of Six Sigma. It is relatively easy to "game" the numbers of Six Sigma. How? A centered four sigma process has a defect rate of 63 ppm. A shifted (+/- 1.5 sigma) four sigma process has a defect rate of 6210 ppm. It would be easy for someone to intentionally or accidentally measure a defect rate of 6210 on a shifted process, claim a Four Sigma quality level, and have others interpret their process to have a defect rate of a mere 63 dpm.
CAREFUL, CAREFUL. LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

From: (Jaws)
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: SIX Sigma fad or fact
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 04:52:41 GMT

I was on board at Motorola when they conceived the 6 sigma concept(s) and actually wrote the very 1st ever six sigma software. I believe the most useful part is the concept of design margins.

For years the 'industry' look at histograms and said basically, if you were inside of 3 sigma limits, then your parts were good. Of course if PART A is at -2.5 sigma and PART B is at +2.5 sigma, there is a large difference when you start mating the parts together. To quote a Motorola hand out from about 1987 ...

'The performance of a product is determined by how much margin exists between the design requirement of its characteristics (and those of its parts/steps), and the actual value of those characteristics. These characteristics are produced by processes in the factory, and at the supplier.

Each process attempts to reproduce its characteristics identically from unit to unit, but within each process some variation occurs. For more processes, such as those which use real time feedback to control outcome, the variation is quite small, and for others it may be quite large.

A variation of the process is measured in Std. Dev, (sigma) from the Mean. The normal variation, defined as process width, is +/-3 Sigma about the mean.

Approximately 2700 parts per million parts/steps will fall outside the normal variation of +/- 3 Sigma. This, by itself, does not appear disconcerting. However, when we build a product containing 1200 parts/steps, we can expect 3.24 defects per unit (1200 x .0027), on average. This would result in a rolled yield of less than 4%, which means fewer than 4 units out of every 100 would go through the entire manufacturing process without a defect.

Thus, we can see that for a product to be built virtually defect-free, it must be designed to accept characteristics which are significantly more than +/- 3 sigma away from the mean.

It can be shown that a design which can accept TWICE THE NORMAL VARIATION of the process, or +/- 6 sigma, can be expected to have no more than 3.4 parts per million defective for each characteristic, even if the process mean were to shift by as much as +/- 1.5 sigma only 0.0041 defects per unit (1200 x 0.0000034). This would mean that 996 units out of 1000 would go through the entire manufacturing process without a defect. To quantify this, Capability Index (Cp) is used.

...'

This is indeed just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and when I worked at Motorola, we had many, many classes that dealt with a larger concept. So keep in mind that I have been brain washed, (in a good way) to think this way. When you add the above to the other parts of 'Six Sigma' it does reduce cost and in prove product. I've seen it in action.

Getting from +/- 3 sigma to +/- 6 sigma is a whole other ball game. It can't be done over night. Furthermore, one needs to use all the Six Sigma concepts together to make it work. There must be a reason why GE and now Dupont, I believe, have adopted these concepts.

For what its worth, that's my $0.02 (US)

Jim Winings

From: Terry Peterson
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 21:54:22 +0100
To: den.list
Subject: six sigma

Not this again, I hear the world-wide groan.

I don't intend to prolong the discussion. I just wanted to thank the many good people who responded to my original request for help. It has helped me resolve the client issue.

Below is a summary of the responses. I am not able to acknowledge all the contributions, if you see your words, please take it as a sincere compliment.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

First and foremost Six Sigma is a BUSINESS. The Six Sigma Academy in Scottsdale, Ariz., is run by former Motorola quality experts Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder, who rope steers in their spare time and pose for publicity pictures in cowboy hats and boots. Their fees start at $1 million per corporate client. It's expensive to implement, so it has been a large-company trend.

Most people responded that there is not an affordable way to learn Six Sigma well without attending "THE ACCADIMY." This explains why I couldn't find any books that explain what six sigma is and how to do it; and why Harry's books and articles are heavy on promoting benefits and light on details. They aren't about to give the store away! ASQ has decided to make Six Sigma training affordable to small and midsize companies. But even though trainees from different companies are grouped together, it still costs $35,000 to $40,000 a person. Despite this, there's a waiting list.

Six sigma does indeed have an attractive message for CEO's - save millions on the bottom line. Put the resources in place, get the people trained up and they'll big savings in waste reduction and efficiency gains. About 30 companies have embraced Six Sigma including Bombardier, ABB (Asea Brown Boveri) and Allied Signal. But it's capturing widespread attention because of two heavyweight disciples: CEOs Jack Welch of GE and Bossidy of AlliedSignal. They are arguably the most influential executives in business today; they talk to each other on the phone weekly and encourage their employees to share Six Sigma discoveries between companies.

What is it? I was stuck for info. However, it turns out that two guys from my client had been trained as black belts in mid 90's, although they hadn't been able to make much use of it. So, I was able to study their material in depth, and I was able to confirm that Six Sigma uses bog standard statistics, process management and continual improvement techniques in a nicely packaged, well promoted marketing proposal. First up, it is NOT Deming based: there is no concept of SoPK; despite the heavy doses of statistics, spc and process behaviour charts are relegated to process monitoring; and a major element uses Juran's breakthrough strategy for quality improvement projects.

In his current QP articles, Harry says "In most cases, what we see is alphabet soup--a wide array of programs and initiatives that may or may not work consistently toward the same end by the same means. We see a cornucopia of well-intended and sometimes disconnected interventions struggling to coexist under one corporate umbrella<sum><sum>. In other words, while the people in charge of the processes and operations of the company are focused on the real expectations of the customer, the company's executives are focused on the real and perceived economic needs of the business. While both factions are trying to achieve their aims independently, often there are mismatches among the customers' needs, the needs of the provider and the inherent capability of the systems by which these needs are aligned, connected and improved<sum><sum>. The crux of the issue is that the business of making profits has been too large for any one specific management intervention. Although useful initiatives have been present for a long time, and although they have seemed perfect on paper, they have never functioned as an integrated whole. We have lacked a holistic focus, an approach that could align and leverage the various initiatives in a harmonious and simultaneous manner.

Dead right Mikel! However, we already have an holistic framework - it's called SopK!!

He goes on, "We at the Six Sigma Academy believe our new definition of quality can provide the organising focus the quality movement needs <sum>.. Six Sigma, focuses concurrently on all elements of the matrix, moving a company toward entitlement in all dimensions of business. Via the Breakthrough Strategy, Six Sigma brings the entire mosaic of the matrix under one umbrella. In this way it provides a complete framework for balanced and profitable corporate turnaround".

Good words but, on closer inspection, six sigma in action doesn't match this rhetoric. Nice packaging and good promotion don't add up to add up to a soundly-based philosophical framework for running an organisation. The training concentrates on advanced statistical methods that demand a relatively high degree of mathematical ability. It depends on measureables attained to keep it alive in the eyes of the top level management, to keep it interesting to the people affected by it, and to sustain the "priestly caste" of the black belt. The programme is very intensive, one black belt likened it to 'drinking through a fire hose'. Most of it is surplus to requirements.


Harry outlines the basic framework of six sigma as;

-- Highly visible top-down management commitment to the initiatives.

-- A measurement system (metrics) to track the progress that are integrated into business strategy. This weaves accountability into the initiatives and provides a tangible picture of the organisation's efforts.

-- Successful six sigma efforts are supported with a framework of process thinking.

-- Internal and external benchmarking of the organisation's products, services, and processes. This requires disciplined customer and market intelligence gathering.

-- Six sigma projects must produce real savings.

-- Stretch goals to focus people on changing the processes by which the work gets done, rather than "tweaking" the existing processes. This leads to exponential rates of improvement.

-- Educating all levels of the organisation. Without the necessary training, people cannot bring about breakthrough improvement.

-- Success stories to demonstrate how the Breakthrough Strategy is applied and the results.

-- Champions and Black Belts to promote the initiatives and provide the necessary planning, teaching, coaching and consulting at all levels of the organisation.

-- Developing a breakthrough philosophy.

-- Leaders support and reward initiatives and the improvement teams that carry them out

Again good words, but there are concerns about this in practice. Right from the start of six sigma training the 'bottom line' financial gain from projects is the key project driver. Customer focus is of secondary importance; in the real world the first question the black belts have to answer is "How much will this project save?". Short term thinking does not provide long term benefits derived from improving processes by working with a customer on what their expectations are. One of the advantages advantage claimed for six sigma is its addition of resources, the corps of highly qualified business process improvement experts (the green, black, and master black belts) who wield the tools needed to achieve the enterprise's strategic objective. Expensive to train (up to US$30,000 per belt) and deployed for the medium to long- term, these highly motivated and skilled individuals focus on corporate sponsors (for the leverage required to overcome resistance to change, obtain additional resources, and align strategic objectives), make sure that the right metrics are identified, and continually signpost progress to cement-in both corporate and front-line commitment. Six sigma programmes call for "the best people" to be trained as black belts.

However respondents cite two issues with this:

-- Quality improvement is made to seem difficult and the prerogative of the expert. This seems to miss the notion that reducing variation ought to be the job of everyone. The Japanese feel that most workers are capable of learning what is needed to ensure quality and continuous improvement at the line worker level and expect they will study and analyse the quality control process on their own initiative. I believe this to be consistent with Dr. Deming's and Shewhart's opinion as to the learning abilities of the "willing workers."

-- Most quality improvement requires consistent application of basic approaches. Most black belts when interviewed will readily admit that over 90% improvements are achieved with about 20% of the content of the training. This is very wasteful "Where six sigma programs are being effective they tend to be in companies with very directive cultures..... some 'master' black belts are reporting spending as much as 60% of their time on collecting and reporting project data. The bigger drawback, however, is that the moment the management stop driving, all improvement stops"

In my original query, I asked about the 1.5 sigma shift, or the idea that 6sigma actually equals 4.5 sigma. No one was able to cite evidence for this. It seems to be based on a concept of process drift and/or short-term vs. long-term limits. If this makes sense in your system, then it might have some value. Most respondents did not accept it. I also had difficulty with the relevance of 6 or 4.5 sigma. Matching the voice of the customer to the voice of the process is an obvious need. But, how you attach a sigma value to customer entitlement seems to me a mind-boggling concept. Deming said, "It is necessary to innovate, to predict the needs of customers, to give them more". In other words, don't just meet today's perceived needs, continually strive to improve everything, always.

One respondent reported Don Wheeler's comments on six sigma, "Although Six Sigma is obviously based on and derived from the area under a normal curve, it is used as a communications metric, and not a scientific one. It's a way to express the approximate aggregate capability of a process. Understanding it that way requires that you <sum> add a new definition for 'sigma' to your vocabulary, but once you do that, it actually becomes a <sum> useful communications vehicle. "It is unfortunate that they used the word 'sigma,' because it has such precise meanings in the statistical world (or not, depending upon whom you read)."

Does it work? From the responses, the answer is, "it depends". It probably has utility in areas that involve multi-component assembly, such as advanced electronics. This may explain why GE, Allied Signal, Motorola, et al, have got mileage from it. However, others report that some companies have realised after several years application of six sigma that their customers are not seeing the benefits and are becoming irritated by the constant publicity.

Is the cost justified? Those who make their living by training Six Sigma are not going to stand up and say that it does not provide value. My view is that some organisations may be able to achieve the short term cost savings and justify the cost of training the multi-colour belts. Long term; the jury is still out.

There remains one outstanding issue. Six sigma is essentially predicated on existing in today's Anglo-Saxon, (i.e. British/American), management model. It says, "carry on as you are, and we will show you how to further improve the bottom line". One of my favourite papers (1) suggests that the new management theories cannot be grafted piece-meal onto existing structures, it requires full-scale organisation change, In Deming terms, 'transformation'.

Myron Tribus says that most of the alphabet soup of quality initiatives; ISO-9000, MBNQA, EFQM Excellence Model, etc, can have real value, if they are implemented through a deep understanding of SoPK. The thinking process involved in this understanding means that management simply has transform the way they run the organisation. Six sigma's attempt to eschew this, means that it will inevitably be seen as yet another business fad, nonetheless profitable for those selling it.

I hope this closes the discussion.

(1) TQM's Challenge to Management Theory and Practice, Grant, Shani and Krishnan, Sloan Management Review. Winter 1994

Terry Peterson

Jim.
Thanks for that explanation. I attended a presentation by Motorola in the Apple Computer plant in Cork, Ireland, nearly 20 years ago, and have not dealt with it since, so I'd forgotten the point of it. Looking at discussions here, I have always felt sceptical but couldn't nail down the reason for my doubts. I felt generally, that 6 sigma applies where it applies and that 3 sigma is great where it applies.
Now, take the cases you mentioned;
A product with 1200 steps delivers only 4% good at 3 sigma. No argument - 6 sigma is much better. But is it totally appropriate? How much pain can the process take? Would 7 sigma be more appropriate?
Now take the product with only one step. We can get better than 3% fallout at 3 sigma. Is it appropriate to tool up for 6 sigma? Maybe it is but, in most cases, I think it isn't.
So, I would take each case according to it's merits and the guys that can make that decision are the guys that design the tool, make the product and use it, pooling their information to come to the decision. The idea of 'management' deciding that we'll have an 'across the board' 6 sigma revolution, is what seems to come over, just like a Baldridge hype project. Do they apply 6 sigma to the camshaft dimensions and the same to the hubcaps?
When do the apply 4, 5 and 7 sigma? As appropriate? never? Surely, sometimes they are more appropriate?
Is 6 sigma totally inappropriate for most assemby operations because it is easy to live with lower tolerances, and far cheaper?
Is it possible to mould plastic to meet 6 sigma requirements? Would you, if you could?
There is something I'm missing? The question is, is it just me?
rgds, John C

[This message has been edited by John C (edited 10 June 2000).]

John …Yes and No!

Six Sigma is much more than measurements. But, measurements are my forté. If suppliers for the proverbial guys with Six Sigma requirements don't built parts to Six Sigma specification, then Six Sigma could never be implemented. However, when I worked at Motorola and would help suppliers, I found out that a lot of times they couldn't meet it due to 'low tech' measurement devices. I.E. dial calipers trying to measure .00005. It wasn't cost effective for them to spend 'lots-o-dollars' on better measurement equipment. For example…

Maximum Specification .055 Minimum Specification. .045 Nom .050

Their data would be…

.05 . 05 .05 .05 .05

Now depending on if you’re a purest or not, you don't have a process. I.E. there is NO absolute zero!

But if when you make your measurement with your dial calipers you add .000005 or so to the measurement, it looks and calculates much better. So that is the first thing to remember when making measurements for Six Sigma. I mean whom is going to argue about .000005 when the Specification. is +/- .001.

The second thing that I found out was sometimes meeting Six Sigma was just as simple as changing a Maximum or Minimum Specification. For example, if to meet Six Sigma your specification had to be .045 and .055 but your specification was .047 and .052, and your parts were all like .049 to .051 just opening up the specification to what you can produce can meet it. I.E. where ever +/- 4.5 or 6 sigma falls.

Regardless of what you specification is on paper, this is what you are capable producing. And that is the bottom line. What can you produce consistently? That is part of the idea, is consistency.

Does this make sense?

Jim Winings

[This message has been edited by Jim Winings (edited 01 July 2000).]

Jim,

Well I'm not sure that I quite see what you're getting at but it doesn't seem to make sense. First;'there's more to 6 Sigma than measurements'. Well I see from other discussions that to a lot of people it's just a slogan for another hype program with numerical goals which will frighten people. A sort of anti-Deming exercise. So let's forget that aspect.

Regards the measurements;

This is not my field (maybe that's what keeps my mind clear on it?), so I'm surmising:

I'm not sure if you are telling me that people have ways of getting around it and you approve, or that you don't approve. For example, if the calipers can't measure to spec then it's ok to massage the data a little to make it look right.
Let's assume that you agree with me. This is my take on the issues you have raised;

There's no sense in this world having 6 sigma as your goal if the product is not designed to 6 sigma. All dimensions have a nominal and + and - tolerances. The tolerances can be such that the parts always work together, sometimes work together or that the great majority work together. What we are looking at is tightening the tols so that all within 6 sigma will work together. (based on the known capability of the process to be used!)
If your tolerances can't produce this, then you will never have 6 sigma whatever you do in the process unless you ignore the tols and set up your own arbirary ones. This is possible but it's not a very sensible way of going about the business especially when, as you say, knowing they are well within the tols, people break the arbitrary rules and move outside or, change the tols to meet what the system is capable of producing consistently.

This is not 6 sigma, nor is it good practise. It would explain how, in one of the other discussions, someone noted how a company achieved and maintained 6 sigma and yet the customers were no happier. In plain terms, it's bluff.

Back to the managers;

I'm always knocking managers but, they are responsible and paid to take responsibility. Managers will allow this sort of 'Kings New Clothes' stuff to go on so that the company can claim 6 sigma and the share price will rise. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a **** how it is done, if the share price rises - we can fix all those problems next quarter "the main thing is to be still here next quarter!". But the short term gains lead to long term losses. Win the local battle this year and lose the industry to the Far East over the next decade.

Managers should understand their processes, take responsibility, provide clear aims. the right aims, meet them openly and work then to set and achieve even better aims. Once we start muddying the waters with personality trips then we lose our way. Good engineers seek the basic cause of problems and the basic cause can only be bad management. Bad things don't happen under good management - by definition.

Deming ****s this 6 sigma sort of stuff. By the way, what did he actually say? I never heard but I'm sure he must have had some strong comment on the business.

You are right in saying there is more to this business than measurements. If you are one of the thousands of good and sincere people who do a good job and have to make the system work despite the bad leadership, then OK. Do what you have to do. It's a tough life making your customer happy when your supplier is incapable of seeing the spec but, in the absense of someone above seeing the light, then you have to keep on keeping on. I did this for years until I saw that all roads eventually came back to the same place - then I started trying to resolve the problems at base.

Someone out there knows what Deming said about all this? Come in please.

rgds, John C

>>Well I'm not sure that I quite see what you're getting at but it doesn't seem to make sense ...

OK probably me. I'm in the middle of trying to get another release of software out the 'door' so I may have not explained things as well as I should have! (sorry)

>>Well I see from other discussions that to a lot of people it's just a slogan ...

That may be due to them not having 'all' the training, so the can only see a small portion of the entire concept. But you're right, that is for the 'flame' topic! (GRIN)

>>I'm not sure if you are telling me that people have ways of getting around it and you approve ...

No, that's not it. Just as with most things in life, or at least this is what I have found, there are more than one way to solve a problem. There are at least two ways to get to Six Sigma. And there is a lot evolved with it.

When I worked at Motorola, they kept stressing that 'Motorola was NOT the expert in making their suppliers parts, the suppliers were'. This is indeed part of the Six Sigma concept. Becoming partners with your suppliers and/or customers. There is much more in depth discussion that should be covered here, but I don't want to eat up all of Marc's server space, and besides, I should be working on getting my late software out.

You can tighten the process and conform to Six Sigma, or, if the final design tolerance can stand it, you can open up a specification. The actual specification is NOT relevant. What is, is the 'Design Margin'. So it doesn't really matter what the specification is as long as it meets the Six Sigma Design Margin. These are topics covered in several Six Sigma classes. To include 'Design For Manufacturability' and 'Understanding +/- 6 Sigma'. So if one hasn't had the full gambit of classes there are huge gaps in the concepts so it won't make much sense.

For example, my software was design with a 'slider' that is adjustable between 3 and 6 sigma in .5 sigma steps. This allows one to tweak the process or specification and move the slide to the next' 'milestone'. But in association with that is the distribution chart. This is NOT your standard histogram. It plots your actual data and draws a perfect bell shape curve around it. Remember that this is all based on a 'NORMAL' distribution. Then it draws another bell shape curve around the Specification Nominal. So all you have to do is look at where the tails of the curves lay in relation to the selected design margin via the slider. This is what ones process is capable of producing at that point in time. It also tells you where your specifications should be for the selected design margin.

>>Deming ****s this 6 sigma sort of stuff ...

Well, he has ****ed other things before as well. (Jeeze, I thought he died) Well ya learn something new everyday!

>>All dimensions have a nominal and + and - tolerances. The tolerances can be such that the parts always work together, sometimes work together or that the great majority work together. What we are looking at is tightening the tols so that all within 6 sigma will work together. (based on the known capability of the process to be used!)...

Exactly!

>>This is possible but it's not a very sensible way of going about the business especially when, as you say, knowing they are well within the tols, people break the arbitrary rules ...

And when they do, there is a 1.5 sigma shift to allow for that?

>>This is not 6 sigma, nor is it good practise. It would explain how, in one of the other discussions, someone noted how a company achieved and maintained 6 sigma and yet the customers were no happier. In plain terms, it's bluff ...

Well that is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to it. There are many things that can happen to any concept. However, since, I have no knowledge of what company, etc. so this is just here say and I can't commit on it.

>>those problems next quarter "the main thing is to be still here next quarter!". But the short term gains lead to long term losses. Win the local battle this year and lose the industry to the Far East over the next decade ...

The reason Motorola went to Six Sigma was because they were losing market shares to Japan. Six Sigma helped turn that around. But in general I can agree with your statement, I just don't know how true it holds with the Fortune 1000 companies. And the 'big guys' should have liaisons in place to monitor their supplies to insure that doesn't happen.

>>Once we start muddying the waters with personality trips ...

It doesn't matter if you work for a Fortune 1000 company or for a company with 4 people. There is, and I can assume will always be politics. I hate politics, so I agree with you, but neither you nor I can ever change that or the fact that people in quality circles will always have different opinions on what is the 'best' quality concept. Personally, I haven't seen any 'NEW' concepts since Deming's concepts in about 1945. To me, they are all just the same old things repackaged. ISOxxxxx for example. Nothing new here. I was performing most parts of it back in 1982 or so.

This may not have cleared things up much, but I can't cover the thousands of hours of training and experience that 'Black Belts' have and that is what it may take to make it comprehensible. I'm not 'PRO or CON' on any of the concepts in quality. I just play with what the big guys dictate. And right now that seems to be Six Sigma.

Jim Winings

[This message has been edited by Jim Winings (edited 02 July 2000).]

Just a 'side bar' you might think is funny!!!

Because the 'X' key is next to the 'C' key, I keep having typos that say ...

Sic Sigma

hehehehehehehehehehehe

------------------
Jim Winings

Excellent! Another forum to tap into. Our company has been given a requirement by a major customer to "join" them in the 6 sigma quest. They want their X% price reduction and this is how they feel we should do it. I am told that I will be on the "team" which is okay but all I know about 6 sigma is a few buzz words, a basic concept, and knowing that now my 18 hour day will truly be full! (haha.
Anyone have a recommendation for a book, video, cd, or even "6 sigma for dummies" perhaps?

-Fumbling in Florida

Wow

Ive hit the wrong button on my computer and found my way into a dark and dusty dungeon on this website where i have never ventured before (and now i know why).

Do you people really beleive that you can improve quality (and in the case of the last post, acheive cost reduction) via statistics.

Do you not think it might be more useful to invest time developing the mindset or cost consciousness of the people producing the goods?.

Regards

(Just feeling awkward today)

------------------
Andy B

To Andy,
Statistics do not do anything except reveal results based on the data input.
Do I expect to improve quality due to stats?
Yes, if I answer the results from careful input with a correction in an improvement direction which may well include your suggestion regarding personnel, among other things.

-Always feeling awkward (hey, Im on earth!)

Steve - Andy
Oh boy something I competley agree with - Stats don't "do" anything by themselves - (my opinion only) - stats are simply a tool that will give us an information "hint" about the decision to be made.
1)Where we should look to improve
2)Where we should not have a reason to be concerned.

And YES there is a "cost factor" difference between +/- 3 sigma and +/-4 or +/-12

The "tighter" one tries to hold widgets within increased sigma cpk or PPk boundries the higher the cost. As I see it that aspect is dificult to avoid & needs to be "justified" by actual observance of defects. After all even if a histogram predicts there are 6 or 6000 "probable defects" out there - how many in reality do I actually see when the "probable" defects are interacting with 4 or 5 other assembly variables that each have their own "probable" rate?? - If I match a "probably small shaft with a "probably large" bushing - the function of the part may in fact be no different than the design calls for anyway..

Andy,

Statistics are very useful for improving quality and achieving cost reductions, in some cases more so than in others. Sometimes it is more useful to develop people. In practise, the right amount of both, plus a lot of other good stuff is the way to go.
But, tell me; Do you really believe that you can achieve quality without statistics?

rgds, John C

Statistics is the cornerstone to improving quality. It gives you a visual picture, not to be confused with the non-visual picture, of your process capabilities. What you do or don't do with the information is the key to if it works.

It also helps if everyone that touches a piece part, looks at it, not inspect it actually, but look for the obvious. It cost much less in both $$$$ and PR to find defects and defectives in house.

------------------
Jim Winings

Several months back (maybe longer) I asked in one of these forums "what was six sigma?" Since that time, I've read a number of articles, plus Mikel Harry's book on sig sigma (his claim is he was one of the original players at motorola when six sigma was initiated). Personally, I think it is a great concept. What Harry has done, in a nutshell (IMHO), is give companies what they've always wanted, a method to quantify (and justify) cost savings by implementing a quality initiative. Harry's most basic premise is that costs increase and functionality dcreases the farther one deviates from the nominal (huh, sounds like Taguchi loss function to me). But it makes sense, directly affects the bottom line, and BOTH supplier AND customer benefit. The cost of quality has always been a sore subject with me, and while Harry doesn't state it explicitly (again IMHO), he does imply that the cost of quality is the cost of doing business. I have reservations about the 1.5 shift, and Harry really doesn't bring anything "new" to table as far as individual quality tools, but he's done a great job of packaging and selling the concept. Companies like GE, Allied Signal, and Polaroid, to name a few, have bought into six sigma, with some rather impressive results.

John,

I just read through this thread and in your July 1 you stated:

Deming damns this 6 sigma sort of stuff. By the way, what did he actually say? I never heard but I'm sure he must have had some strong comment on the business.

The first thing that popped into my mind was that he said precise optimization was not desirable. It would be too costly. I really enjoyed that post of yours, by the way.

Mike 1245 posted:

Several months back (maybe longer) I asked in one of these forums "what was six sigma?" Since that time, I've read a number of articles, plus Mikel Harry's book on sig sigma (his claim is he was one of the original players at motorola when six sigma was initiated).

I felt at the time of your post you may have been fishing for some answers based on the large debate between Quality Progress (ASQ) and its members. Maybe the timing was coincidental.

Dr. Mikel Harry may be a pretty smart guy, but his arrogance and lack of respect for the men who founded statistical thinking and management philosophy shrouds his accomplishments (if truly any) in a dark, stinky cloud (in fact, his whole program is based on their works). His subsequent articles have the same arrogant tone, IMHO. Needless to say, I am not a fan of the cowboy.

Harry's plan lacks intrinsic motivation, focuses on numerical goal that are abitrarily set, and promotes short-term thinking. I believe that an organization is not in the business to make money as a primary objective (unless it is a fund raising organization). This belief was promoted and shared by Deming, Juran, and Sarasohn to name a few. Organizations should be in business to create jobs, and more jobs in fulfilling customers' needs, supporting with respect to the communittee, the enviroment, and its employees. Stockholders come somewhere after that. Harry's plan is about fulfiling the short-term investor at any cost. The reason that this is so popular is because of Wall Street's need to make instant riches. There is no instant pudding, WED. The promotion of Harry's plans by the CEOs of these organization only lend to the misunderstanding of the program's apparent success, IMHO. It isn't that easy, and if it were, we'd all be rich. JC's post from July 1 was right on the money, even from the perspective of a person acknowledging limited statistical knowledge (John, you do a pretty good job at explaining for such a novice). Six Sigma is more than statistics, it is a management methodology (philosophy). There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma thinking, from the perspective that it is used to promote reduction of variation and improve quality/productivity. However, Harry's slant on it and the Black Belt program at $35,000 a crack may show significant short term gains, but lacks long term thinking. However, it is making him a rich man! The organizations you listed have been successful for many years, even before Dr. Harry came along. Many factors can be attributed to their current success, and Harry Dent believes the success of many of the Fortune 500 organizations is based on spending waves (cyclical change) and structural change. I believe he is right on this. I would recommend Dent's books Our Power to Predict and The Great Boom Ahead.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group....

Ok, I'm confused ...

Kevin Mader said ...
I believe that an organization is not in the business to make money as a primary objective (unless it is a fund raising organization).

Then where does it get the moneys to expand technology? These thoughts may have worked in the 40's, 50's 60's and even 70's, but, as technology grows in BIG leaps and bounds, it takes a lot of dollars, pounds, etc. to hire talent to stay on the cutting edge. Not to mention the cost of test equipment, etc.

If large companies can't save money, which making money is an alternitive to saving money, then where labor is cheaper will always win out. Becaise the money to purchase test equipment, etc. must come from somewhere. This in turn leads to lower wages and a poorer quality of life, and even a potential for issues like slave labor. This is NOT the same world that Deming was in 40 to 60 years ago.

Deming was correct, without a doubt in the 40's when he took SPC to Japan. But business is much more complex today.

I'm just not sure that Kevin's statement from above is applicable in today's 'New Economy' with world wide markets.

------------------
Jim Winings

Kevin:

Just one simple question - if a company's primary goal isn't to make money, then what is it? Seems to me that that's the primary goal to every business I know about. If you think a company's goal is working towards some higher, esoteric purpose, I'd like to know which one's. Bottom line, publicly held companies need to show fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders and other investors, and privately held companies are in it for the buck.

I submit to any "non-profit entrepeneurs" that one ask any shareholder or investor what is the primary function of a business? I have never once in my brief stay here on planet earth heard anyone state an intention to start a business because they believed so highly in a means of managing quality or so that they might make "something" with zero defects.

Excuse my 'tude but this was one that I had to have a moment with! :)

--- i know nothing and i can prove it !

In occupied Japan in 1946 MacArthur needed radios for the Japanese but they were having problems building them. A former engineer of Crosley Corp., Homer Sarasohn, was dispatched to Japan, and with Charles Protzman of Western Electric they ended up putting together a course for Japanese managers. Some of the pupils in the first class were Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka, who founded Sony, Hanzou Omi of Fujitsu, Masaharu Matsushita of Matsushita Electric, and others. A motto was on the first page of the course material, from Newport News Shipbuilding; "We shall build good ships here; at a profit if we can, at a loss if we must, but always good ships."

If one starts a business for the "primary" purpose of making money; they will fail (or go to jail for counterfeiting).
There are several things that have to be addressed to make money;Price,cost,efficiency,ROI,delivery,quality, wants/needs of the customer, customer satisfaction and ability to produce.
All of these topics and more are covered under the guise of a good quality system.
Making money is the by-product of making something that someone wants or needs. Of course we all know that we can make money by supplying inferior product at inflated rates, but for how long?

Originally posted by Jim Winings:
Ok, I'm confused ...

Kevin Mader said ...
I believe that an organization is not in the business to make money as a primary objective (unless it is a fund raising organization).

Then where does it get the moneys to expand technology?



Jim, you're arguing for Kevin, not against him. The money that the company makes must be put back into the R&D department.

So the objective was to continue supporting R&D, not just to make money.

IMHO http://www.16949.com/ubb/smile.gif a company is in business to supply a product its customers want in return for fair compensation.

If the customers don't want the product, the company folds. http://www.16949.com/ubb/frown.gif

If the company can't get fair compensation, they file for bankruptcy soon enough. http://www.16949.com/ubb/frown.gif

Just my $0.02 worth.

AJP


[This message has been edited by AJPaton (edited 31 July 2000).]

Hello all,

I am currently reading Harry's book on 6 Sigma as part of research I am doing for my own book. I was not familiar with 6 Sigma prior to reading his book and now after getting into the subject and reading your posts as well as other articles, I see a "house divided" with regards to the merits of this "new" methodology. I myself find two, IMHO, major flaws in the philosophy of 6 Sigma.

1). The concept of Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO) can be manipulated by an unscrupulous individual to "pad" the numbers and improve the Sigma rating without actually improving any processes. Example: This year I report to my shareholders that we are implementing 6 Sigma for our main product line. I report that the product has 4 parts or processes that 6 Sigma can apply to, and that currently we are operating at the 3.30-3.25 Sigma range or 37,500 DPMO. I wait 12 months and then report to my shareholders that we are now at 3.85 Sigma or 9,375 DPMO and my stock shares rise in value. How did I accomplish this without improving quality? Simple. I divided each step into 4 steps, thereby increasing the number of "opportunities" for defect from 4 to 16. Now according to Harry's formula provided in his book, I have, indeed increased my Sigma without increasing my quality. This may not be applicable in the real world and I would hope it isn't but the point I'm trying to make is that the numbers can be "fudged" to promote a virtual increase in quality without an actual increase. Maybe an improvement on the 6 Sigma push would be to lock controls in place to prevent this from happening.

2). The basic tenet of 6 Sigma is "If you build it, they will come." In other words, if your company implements 6 Sigma and subsequently builds a superior product, external factors, (such as the economy, competition, changing customer desires, etc.) shouldn't affect the sales of your company's product. A perfect example of the flaw of this argument would be Apple computers in the 80's. It was a superior product, in both design and function, but the wave of public interest went in the PC direction. Look at the New Coke fiasco. All their taste tests showed it to be a superior product, yet the public didn't go for it. This definitely affected the bottom lines of both these companies. With 6 Sigma, the only variables that can be controlled are the ones that can be measured and the only variables that can be measured are internal to the organization. I'm not sure of a way around this one. External factors MUST be considered when implementing quality initiatives. What will it matter if you build the best product nobody wants?

These are some things that have gone through my mind as I research this material and read the opinions of others on the subject. I also have a problem with the 1.5 Sigma "shift". There seems to be something kind of fishy about a quality enhancement methodology requiring the removal of variances in production while not removing the variances from itself.

Jim Winings said:

These thoughts may have worked in the 40's, 50's 60's and even 70's, but, as technology grows in BIG leaps and bounds, it takes a lot of dollars, pounds, etc. to hire talent to stay on the cutting edge.

Mike1245 said:

Just one simple question - if a company's primary goal isn't to make money, then what is it?

Steven Truchon said:

I have never once in my brief stay here on planet earth heard anyone state an intention to start a business because they believed so highly in a means of managing quality or so that they might make "something" with zero defects.

I put these together so I could summarize my feelings on this. Everyone makes a valid point and I found the input interesting, but a small point should also be made (IMHO).

The primary purpose of an organization should be to STAY in business, not to make money. A company that stays in business provides much more than a company that merely makes money. However, if making money in the primary means of staying in business, so be it! And if some so-called quality initiative is the means to make money, thus staying in business, so be it. But, make no mistake, if a company's primary goal is to make money, rest assured they will not be a company long.

"We shall build good ships here; at a profit if we can, at a loss if we must, but always good ships."

That should be the goal of an organization. And you are right about Sarasohn. I have read that course over and over.

If one starts a business for the "primary" purpose of making money; they will fail (or go to jail for counterfeiting).

As you can tell from above, I agree.

Jwmgmt:

I agree with your post. Superior quality, thus a superior product, do not mean diddly if no one buys them. So I have issues with those quality 'programs' that do not examine all aspects of the business.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

I have been studying this site and it makes me want to throw up. When we will learn that no system is the cure all. It seems to be assumed by most of the participants here that as long as you make the best quality part imaginable, you are assured to be in business. I am in automotive and I can't tell you quality is nothing. Price is everything. Now the customers will throw you out for quality, but they will throw you out faster for price. It does not matter how good your quality is, if a competitor comes in with a better price, you are out. It may not be fair, but that is the way it is. So you have to find a happy medium between quality and cost. Mercedes found this out years ago when they could charge whatever they wanted because they "hand made" much of their cars. Then came Infiniti, and Lexus, quality cars made in production mode and guess what, now you can buy a Mercedes for 30k. Until we quit sitting around thinking up new concepts and work on things that truly affect the bottom line, we will continue to grab on to each new and improved concept that comes down the pike.

dear ahuffman,

I'm not sure if it's etiquette - I apologise in advance if not - however, you might consider reading and replying to my post on deja-misc-industry-quality "is quality progressing" to further your argument. thanks

Personally i have started to participate in these forums because it's obvious a lot of knowledgeable and experienced people are evident. There is a need for application of quality techniques and you'll see people talking about these in most posts ; much of what is discussed leads to cost reduction in the form of waste removal.

So, I'm not convinced of your line of argument that is implying that to be taken seriously or contribute one needs to concentrate on the bottom-line. Are you saying quality techniques are not doing this? You cite an example of the price and quality of cars and indicate that the former is more important to the customer. I'd disagree, consumers don't see it this way, they chose on both equally and believe they're getting it but are often duped. In business, with suppliers and customers we are so fascinated by the bottom-line that it has become the only model because it's simple. But it comes with preconceived ideas - e.g. quality suffers because it's so temptingly linked to cost reduction and not to differentiation.


Definitions of quality based on function and consistency often lead to missing the point that quality is also about uniqueness and desire. Cost reduction is needed but it's a pretty normal target. The marketeers, the designers, the engineers, the artists have to create something of beauty, something of experience that consumers want and society needs so they are willing to pay extra to get. And although competition brings prices down as the product matures there are other considerations to make than the bottom-line.

Doing a good job goes in-hand with producing desireability ; and this is why quality professionals create something new or something extra special and don't focus narrowly on an accountant's balance sheet that doesn't consider the business potential, implications on reputation and what deming I believe called the unknowable costs.

you think?
regards - skyc

[This message has been edited by skyc (edited 11 August 2000).]

On the quality vs cost debate it's perhaps more useful to consider quality as the 'great enabler', the foundation, as without it low cost is a moot point for most, and without it a good design is usually not realized. In a volume environment quality enables the pursuit of lower cost and the consistency also enables better designs to be utilized at lower cost. Note that volume can be either high product volume, or low product volume and high volume of parts and operations. Among engineers this seems to be the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' discussion :^).

ahuffman,

Your argument is justifiable if you change the word "price" to "value". I for one have read Harry's book on Six Sigma and found flaws in it and also after reading Philip Crosby's "Quality Without Tears", see a lot of information being copied by Harry to add support to his theory. You are correct in saying that quality alone is not what the customer cares about, but value is. I say again, you can build the best designed product in the world but if nobody wants it, what good is it?

Something else that should be noted here is that Six Sigma reduces cost. If production remains constant or increases then with reduced costs, profit increases. Profit, not REVENUE. Again, this does not add value to the product, which is what the customer cares about but it does make the stockholders feel warm and fuzzy.

Originally posted by ahuffman:

When we will learn that no system is the cure all.I don't think many here are in any way saying any 1 system is 'the' system. I guess I read these and other posts as discussions of different systems one or more of which may be utilized by any company. Typically no company embraces 6 sigma alone, for example. Companies mix things up. One client I had was into 6 sigma, was completing a 5-S program, was implementing QS9000 and was undergoing an significant internal managem,ent restructuring.

Different threads and topics here in the Cove forums typically are focused, however.

I am in automotive and I can't tell you quality is nothing. Price is everything.I bet Ford will have less consideration of the price it pays for tires with respect to the 'quality' of the product. I hear this arguement often and I always say the same: GM wants a light switch and 2 companies make the switch. Company A sells for 25 cents and company B for 39 cents. Company A's switch has a MTBF of 1000 hours and company B's of 10000. Use predictions are 8000 hours. Considering MTBF to be part of the quality of the product, which one would you, as a GM buyer, purchase? If you want to argue that MTBF is a design consideration, I will point out that the design aspect is surely part of your overall quality system - not just manufacturing.

I've seen a lot of companies go for that 25 cent switch and pay dearly later. Maybe the recent Firestone 'event' was a matter of specifying or buying cheaper materials. We may never *really* know.

Whether one admits it or not, decision making in buying is never based only upon price. The quality of the product you are purchasing is considered in one way or another.

Hi everyone!!!

My name is Carlos Elizondo, Im a 22 years old student from Tampico, Tamaulipas, México.

Im almost to finish my Career, Chemical and Systems Engineering. My thesis theme is: "Development of a guide for the implementation of Six Sigma"
Any suggestions about the methodology for gathering information???
Where can I find more info???

Thank you!

Sorry, I've been away getting the final version released, but I'm back!!!

Seems to me this Six Sigma topic is a little skewed and should be in Six Sigma Want To Fight topic or something, but, let me see if I can get it re-centered?? (Theres a quality joke in there somewhere, but ya have to DIG for it) (GRIN)

AJPaton said ...

Jim, you're arguing for Kevin, not against him. The money that the company makes must be put back into the R&D department.

In order to do R&D a company must make money to pay for benefits to hire the talent to do the R&D. Perhaps we are all on the same page, it just depends, as we all know, on how one measure's it??


jwmgmt said ...
I am currently reading Harry's book on 6 Sigma as part of research ...

Harry taught my 6 Sigma class at Motorola right after that book was 1st published

The concept of Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO) can be manipulated by an unscrupulous individual to "pad" the numbers and improve the Sigma rating without actually improving any processes...

So can any method. Lets face it, as with all statistics, it what and how you measure it. depending on this, you can make a bad part look good or a good part look bad. It's all in the measurement!

Look at the New Coke fiasco. ...

Personally I think that the 'Coke' deal was all a genius marketing deal, and it worked. I think that in the long term, Coke got just what they thought they would get.

I also have a problem with the 1.5 Sigma "shift". ...

According to my Juran Quality and Planning and Analysis book, the 'normal' shift to allow is 1 Sigma, I don't see how an extra .5 sigma, could be viewed as other than common sense. Of course I have had the Six Sigma courses and see the proverbial picture as Motorola wanted me to see it. Maybe that's it?


Don Winton said ...

The primary purpose of an organization should be to STAY in business, not to make money. A company that stays in business provides much more than a company that merely makes money. However, if making money in the primary means of staying in business, so be it! And if some so-called quality initiative is the means to make money, thus staying in business, so be it. But, make no mistake, if a company's primary goal is to make money, rest assured they will not be a company long.

Agreed, but a company can not stay in business without making money. From the business knowledge I have, a company needs to typically charge 75% more for a widgit to make money. Does that mean that at, lets say 25% profit margin to break even, they should sell their widgit for 25% of cost?

In my Six Sigma classes, they stresses getting a Return on net assets and a return on the net investment. This was a very BIG part of the Six Sigma Methodology.

johno said ...

On the quality vs cost debate it's perhaps more useful to consider quality as the 'great enabler', the foundation, as without it low cost is a moot point for most, and without it a good design is usually not realized.

Yes, unfortunately, 'Quality' is still viewed in a lot of proverbial circles as the 'Necessary Evil'


jwmgmt said ...

I say again, you can build the best designed product in the world but if nobody wants it, what good is it?

You are right. This is why Six Sigma requires Customer Suveys. To insure that this does not happen. And I have seen it happen when I was at Motorola. Nothing like spending, well millions at the time, to develop a product that nobody wants and ergo will not purchase.


Marc Smith said ...

I don't think many here are in any way saying any 1 system is 'the' system. I guess I read these and other posts as discussions of different systems one or more of which may be utilized by any company. Typically no company embraces 6 sigma alone, for example. Companies mix things up.

Correct, but I am starting to think that a lot of people think of Six Sigma as only the measurement part of the methodology. And the scope is much much larger than that.

I bet Ford will have less consideration of the price it pays for tires with respect to the 'quality' of the product. ...

I live about 30 miles from the Firestone plant in Decatur IL. I've only been in the area for about 4 years now, but, let me tell you some things about it.

[list=a]
It's not what you know here, it's who you know
Hiring best in class is NOT the norm. I always hear when I score high on a State Test or even with the University System, 'Scoring high only guarantees an interview, not a job. This is because they need to keep labor cheep and in order to do that must hire, in a lot of cases, less than qualified people and train them on the job at a lesser salary.
Lower and Middle Management in this area will NOT hire someone that they feel are more qualified than them. And in a lot of cases, these managers have been promoted to these positions due to politics. They are afraid, I guess, that they will lose their jobs then and that will mean that they will have to start all over again to get back to where they were, if they can at all.
If labor in this area, for example at Firestone, made a stink about the quality, as it seems some ex-employees did, they would lose their jobs and be 'black balled' due to the politics. I actually have evidence of these kinds of activities going on. It is a really sad state of affairs. But just look at what has happen this year here. The Governor Stopped executions due to too many innocent people on Death Row, the ADM deal, and now Firestone. The State of IL also made a mess out of trying to send support checks to Mothers. They hired a bunch of incompetent Sub-Contracting Programmers that couldn't get the job done. And almost every other state, you can look and apply for jobs on the net. Not in IL. You must go to the State Building and look up jobs on their CMS system at a dumb terminal, then fill out application in triplicate, and submit them. That's 21st Century isn't it?
[/list=a]

Well that should stir some excrement!

Wow - just got through perusing this whole forum. Just a few comments -

1. Don Winton. Like your paper (on 6 sigma that I downloaded from the Cove (Marc - you put up some excellent information - so do you Don at your website). Did you write this specifically for the AF?

2. Jim Winnings. Try living in Indiana! And, the way I see it, you can measure something all day long, but there is a sh**load of truth in Taguchi's Loss Function, and that's why the Japanese beat the p*ss out of us everytime - they don't concentrate on the spread (6 sigma) - they shoot for the target (or nominal value).

3. Marc Smith. Bingo! There is NO ONE SYSTEM. If picking one's nose ensured quality, customer satisfaction, and profit, guess what everyone would be doing?

The bottom line is - have an open mind. I didn't buy into 6 sigma at first, and now I would be the first to tell a company to go for it.

Hi everyone!!!

I have a doubt...

Could Six Sigma Methodology apply to micro and small business??? (Less than 50 employees).

Thank you very much???
If I want to develop a guide for that kind of businees, in what aspects should I focus???

Thank you very much,

Carlos Elizondo

Folks: FYI - I'm not sure if Don is back with us.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 June 2001).]

Also see these threads:
Six Sigma - Wanna Fight? An interesting debate of the validity of Six Sigma (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1899)
Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same? (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3823)

Honeywell sez: " Six Sigma Plus methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) is applied to a wide variety of projects -- not only to the elimination of variation in processes. That means Honeywell's Six Sigma Plus umbrella is larger than that of many companies; its skill sets include Lean Enterprise, Activity Based Management, Honeywell Quality Value assessment, Total Productive Maintenance and Growth projects, among others."

Is this the next level in the evolution? Comments?

http://www.honeywell.com/sixsigma/

It appears that the intimadators of the quality revolution have lost sight of the original intent of Six Sigma. It now becomes a catch-all for any type of quality inititive. Total Quality MAnagement - - Six Sigma ; No difference.

I dont think six sigma was ever purely manufacturing process based !!

M,
You are correct. The original intent of six sigma was for new design and complete re-design of products.
Six sigma cannot be used in manufacturing unless first usd in the design of the product.

It appears that the intimadators of the quality revolution have lost sight of the original intent of Six Sigma. It now becomes a catch-all for any type of quality inititive. Total Quality MAnagement - - Six Sigma ; No difference.

Six sigma revolutionized quality management. It used to be there was a quality Assurance group that dealt with specs and a manufacturing group that supported the process. They really didn't have a good way of predicting how the process would meet specs. Then D. Shanin came up with the six sigma-capability concept while working on a contract for Motorola. Quality now had a tool to communicate quanitatively with manufacturing and Quality Control had new importance.

Now six sigma or Six Sigma sometimes means Statistical Techniques and somtimes Total Quality Management. When a term means everything, does it still have meaning? :) Statistical Techniques got a bad rap because people were unsure what it would do for them and it appeared difficult. Total Quality got a bad rap because there was a lot of employee involvement and some managers made sure those teams weren't going to work on anything important. The term Six Sigma implies there is an important objective, so it might be a viable label. Then there is Lean Six Sigma....

Best Wishes,

Tom

Tom

Take those rose tinted glasses off.

Six Sigma invented nothing.

It just repackaged and resold existing proven quality tools.

Six Sigma invented nothing.

It just repackaged and resold existing proven quality tools.

True, true. The bad thing that happened to SS was when the B3 made it mandatory and place a $ saving requirement on it. Our Black Belt candidates had projects rejected for using the wrong "font" in their presentations!
IMO Six Sigma was similar to the "Emperors New Clothes". People scattered and wondered at this new concept. Some saw $ signs and designed training classes and training materials, others started giving seminars on the subject.
All the while, theres a bunch of long-time quality professionals and quality engineers scratching there heads saying "we've been talking about this for years. You mean if we would have charged for it someone would have listened."

Also goes to show why you don't see many Quality people as CEOs! :smokin:

I just went through my files trying to find the earliest reference to Six Sigma. So far, the earliest reference was a Quality Progress article called Six-Sigma Quality Programs, June 1993, by Fred McFadden (University of Colorado Springs). Does anyone else have something older that they can share (actual references not just memories)? Here is a brief summary of the article.

Note: If you notice the title, McFadden hyphenated it and also used six sigma in lower case letters through out the article.

The goal of a six-sigma program is to improve customer satisfaction through reducing and eliminating defects.

At the operation level, six sigma uses statistical measures to characterize defect levels and process capabilities. Most of the article was about CpKs and how it related to defects.

At the managerial level, six sigma relies on the company improvement process used by all employees. The 6 major steps of the six sigma process are:

1. Define products and services
2. Identify customer requirements
3. Compare product with requirements
4. Describe the process
5. Improve the process
6. Measure quality and productivity

The components of a six-sigma quality program are:

1. The improvement process shown above
2. Enabling intiatives and tools (participative management, short cycle manufacturing, design for manufacture, benchmarking, SPC, supplier qualification)
3. Quality measurement (Process mean and standard deviation, capability index, defects per unit)
4. Improvement tools (QFD, flowcharts, Pareto charts, histograms, cause and effect diagrams, DOE)

I've come across this, which might be of interest to historians:

"I have heard enough undeserved credit being given to Mike Harry and Richard Schroeder, who claim they invented Six Sigma, the DMAIC methodology and the Black Belt concept. In reality, these concepts were first developed and implemented by Mario Perez-Wilson at Motorola in the Semiconductor Sector, where I used to work.
Mario (as I knew him personally) came out with the idea of training and developing Statistical Methods Engineers (SME) to be coordinators on each facility of Motorola (PHX, C.E., METL, KLM, SBN, MPI, GDL, MKL) in 1987, when he started at Motorola Semiconductor. The SMEs were trained in the US by him for 6 months and some were trained in Malaysia by B. Rigg who reported to Mario. We were taught the M/PCpS methodology - the first DMAIC approach and Motorola's Six Sigma methodology - and we had to implement it in engineering projects and characterisation studies. The projects were assigned to us before we started the training. We were responsible for the Six Sigma projects, the teams, couching, training, implementing and interfacing with the champions. We had monthly presentations, deliverables, responsibility and accountability. The SME approach for continuous improvement was brilliant, very methodical and worked great. Prior to him, we were using control charts for continuous improvement and occasionally we would do a DOE, GRRs were not even talked about.
Mario's methodology was a 5-Stage approach (you can see it at http://www.mpcps.com):
1. Process Delineation 2. Metrology Characterization 3. Capability Determination 4. Optimization 5. Control
The success of the SMEs was unbelievable in Motorola, we had saved millions of dollars already by 1991. These were the first truly Black Belts at Motorola. Prior to Mario Perez-Wilson working in Motorola Semiconductor, the implementation of continuous improvement was not methodical nor organized and we were fixing the same problems year after year. He changed all of that with his methodology and the SMEs approach.
Then, years later, Mikel Harry claimed (circa 1994) his Six Sigma Methodology is called DMAIC, a 5-Phase approach.
Look at the similarities between Mario's 5-stage and DMAIC:
1. Define 2. Measure 3. Analyze 4. Improve 5. Control
If this is not a copy, I don't know what is! How come Harry did not invented a 3-stage or 6-stage approach?
How did Mikel Harry got all of this information to come up with DMAIC and the Black Belts?
In 1991, Mario, Glenn Kirk and B. Rigg coordinated the first SME symposium in Seoul Korea (27-May-1991 - 31-May-1991), where we all presented the projects we were coordinating in our sites. Mario could not attend the symposium because he took a leave of absence from Motorola. Just prior to the symposium, B. Rigg invited Mikel Harry, who had become Director of Six Sigma Research Institute to the symposium, to witness what we were doing and to present his approach. His approach made no sense to us. He did not even talked about characterising gauges prior to collecting data. Most of the stuff he presented we had been doing for years already, and it was a disaster. He then criticize everything we did and started bad mouthing Mario. Nothing positive came out of his mouth. It was very counterproductive. During his presentations we asked him tough questions and he could not answer. Months later we were told his PhD was in psychology and not in engineering. No wander he could not answer our questions.
Later on, Mikel Harry announces they are doing some publications with Motorola University and the Six Sigma Research Institute and we are asked to change our presentations to fit his format otherwise the projects would not be published. It bothered me, because they took out all references to M/PCpS, which is what started all the projects of improvement in the first place. But, they missed erasing one reference of M/PCpS, which is proof of my account.
At the end of the SME Symposium, we were all given the proceedings, a two-inch thick book with all the characterisation studies and improvement projects we presented. This is another proof (data) of my account.
Our entire efforts as SMEs, fell under the success story of the Six Sigma Research Institute and Mikel Harry, when in reality, Harry nor the Institute contributed in any way, shape or form to our success. Later, we were asked to go through the Black Belt training program and they taught stuff we already knew and gave us roles we already had.
I kept a few copies of the SME Symposium Proceedings. If anybody wants a copy send me your email address.
I know that in this forum a lot of posts are doubtful. I read the one Mario posted about the first company outside Motorola trained in Six Sigma. The company Carsem is here in Malaysia, and that is a true fact. I also liked the fact he included the names of the people as facts or data, so I will do the same here.
Some of the people attending the first SME Symposium in Motorola, Seoul, Korea in May 1991, were:
Glenn Kirk, Bryan Rigg, Adi Bhote, Vincent Tang, Todd Yang, J.J. Lin, Kevin Chiao, K.H. Tan, Baharom, C.C. Shue, Sahidin Kardi, S.J. Lim, Ronnie Manubay, Al Calicdan, Eduardo Bustamante, S.S. Kang, J.H. Suh, A.S. Suk, J.H. Choi, N.K. Seong, T.H. Jung, Y.D. Kang, K.W. You, Mikel Harry, Jim Robertson and Eric Maass.
The credit for Six Sigma should go to Mario and not to Harry. Mikel Harry just wrote articles and took all the credit of other people's work, only because he worked high up in the company and had the power to claim everything for himself. Mario is the guru who taught us his approach to Six Sigma, his methodology, his vision to the SME implementation and he wrote a book just to teach us.
On April 26, 2003, another person made similar allegations to SMEs being the first Black Belts, the post reference is: RE: Black Belt History by MMBB:
http://www.isixsigma.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=26629
I do not work for Mario or his firm. I am just tired of Richard Schroeder's offensive language and allegations "I trained everybody" and Mikel Harry's I invented everything related to Six Sigma. When we all know that both were so high up in their companies, probably all day long in meetings, while my colleagues and myself were doing the true black belt work."

For me Six sigma is just the begining of the knowledge of a Statistical course (Gauss), no more. :lmao:

It is as a simgle concept some Gurus try to sell a discipline....

In my opinion:

I attach a picture of the father of 6 Sigma.

Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss.


Overview

Born: April 30, 1777, Brunswick, Germany
Died: February 23, 1855, Göttingen, Germany

From the outside, Gauss' life was very simple. Having brought up in an austere childhood in a poor and uneducated family he showed extraordinary precocity. He received a stipend from the duke of Brunswick starting at the age of 14 which allowed him to devote his time to his studies for 16 years. Before his 25th birthday, he was already famous for his work in mathematics and astronomy. When he became 30 he went to Göttingen to become director of the observatory. He rarely left the city except on scientific business. From there, he worked for 47 years until his death at almost 78. In contrast to his external simplicity, Gauss' personal life was tragic and complicated. Due to the French Revolution, Napoleonic period and the democratic revolutions in Germany, he suffered from political turmoil and financial insecurity. He found no fellow mathematical collaborators and worked alone for most of his life. An unsympathetic father, the early death of his first wife, the poor health of his second wife, and terrible relations with his sons denied him a family sanctuary until late in life.
Even with all of these troubles, Gauss kept an amazingly rich scientific activity. An early passion for numbers and calculations extended first to the theory of numbers, to algebra, analysis, geometry, probability, and the theory of errors. At the same time, he carried on intensive empirical and theoretical research in many branches of science, including observational astronomy, celestial mechanics, surveying, geodesy, capillarity, geomagnetism, electromagnetism, mechanism optics, actuarial science. His publications, abundant correspondence, notes, and manuscripts show him to have been one of the greatest scientific virtuosos of all time.

It Continues at this link.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/2977/gauss/g_bio.html

I also attach a fantastic German Ten marks with apicture of Gaub, now obsolet with the introdution of the Euro coin in all Europe. see Zip.

For me Six sigma is just the begining of the knowledge of a Statistical course (Gauss), no more. :lmao:

It is as a simgle concept some Gurus try to sell a discipline....

Gauss was not "at the begining of the knowledge of statistics" as you suggest. The normal distribution was invested before Gauss was even born, in 1730, by Abraham De Moivre.

More importantly, the great leap forward in process management was made by Shewhart who pointed out that we will never know what the real distribution is for our data. He showed how control charts could be used without relying on probability. He showed that normal data is not a requirement for control charts.

Shewhart has a simple concept but unfortunately it has been distorted into the nonsense of six sigma by some claiming to be "gurus".

[QUOTE=artichoke;173968]Gauss was not "at the begining of the knowledge of statistics" as you suggest. The normal distribution was invested before Gauss was even born, in 1730, by Abraham De Moivre.

Interesting...
Why The curve was titled as Gauss Distribution?

[QUOTE=artichoke;173968]Gauss was not "at the begining of the knowledge of statistics" as you suggest. The normal distribution was invested before Gauss was even born, in 1730, by Abraham De Moivre.

Interesting...
Why The curve was titled as Gauss Distribution?

Gauss made an ad hoc use of the normal distribution in proving the method of least squares. You will also see references to "de Moivre distribution" and "Gauss Laplace distribution " ... Laplace added the central limit theorem.

The focus on normal distributions in six sigma seems to come from a misunderstanding of the basis for control charts and the assumption of normality used in six sigma tables. Both of these are both quite fallacious. Control charts do not depend on normal distibutions, nor the central limit theorem, and six sigma tables are quite meaningless.