Received: from ralph.asq.org (hq.asq.org [156.46.175.63])
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:28:03 -0600 (MDT)

To: "ASQ Members"
From: "Dick Sandretti"
Reply-to: "Dick Sandretti"
Subject: "Six Sigma Debate at the 54th Annual Quality Congress"

ASQ's involvement with the Six Sigma Academy has caused concern and behind-the-scenes controversy among members. This is your chance to participate in a dialogue with Mikel Harry, CEO of the Six Sigma Academy. You'll hear his story and find out what led to ASQ's involvement with Six Sigma and the Six Sigma Academy. In addition, you can provide your input on ASQ's future course.

The debate, featuring Mikel J. Harry, will be held right after ASQ's Annual Business Meeting on Sunday, May 7, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Sagamore Ballroom of the Indianapolis Convention Center.

Don't miss the Great Six Sigma Debate. It's your chance to:
o Participate in the discussion about Six Sigma.
o Voice your concerns about Six Sigma.
o Get answers to your questions.
o Better understand ASQ's involvement to date.
o Help determine ASQ's future direction with regard to Six
Sigma.

The Great Six Sigma Debate
6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Sunday, May 7
Sagamore Ballroom
Indianapolis Convention Center

Why does this not surprise me???

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

Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: Six Sigma
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:56:25 GMT

Jim Stewart wrote:

> Did anyone else get to Indianapolis and see the 6 sigma "debate"?

Yes and no. I lefted the "debate" because the feedback problem with sound system was too iratating. Until I left, it appeared to me that the ASQ board was in a very defensive posture. Flags go up in my mind whenever someone says something to the effect of "We done nothing in violation of ASQ guidelines."

I would have like to have listened to Mr. Harry's comments. I left because the gain required for his microphone was causing a background shrill. From what I heard on Monday, M. Harry may have toned down some of his previous comments about quality professionals. I've read his series of articles about Six Sigma Breakthrough in Quality Progress. He appears to have found a effective new approach to marketing quality to corporate America. BUT, he too quickly minimizes and dismisses the contributions of the established quality community. I still need to evaluate for myself the "value - entitlement" approach in his articles. Initially, I sense that the approach may not be rigorous from a mathematical point of view but does have value because it organizes tradeoffs in benefits and consequences. So does Theory of Constraints.

Overall, going to Indianapolis was rewarding. I meet several new people, learned a little more about quality, participated in several board meetings, passed the CQA exam, and visited one of the better downtowns I've ever seen. What a nice city.

Duane Allen

From: "PaulR"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:49:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet


"Ron Bally" wrote in message
> Never mind the hype, Martial Arts references and the US style lack of
> Take it as the concept it was meant to be, relating to the definition
> of quality in a business environment that has to do with customer
> satisfaction and the idea that this will cause PROFITS.
> As I understand 6 sigma, was developed by Motorola after they assessed
> that each of their customers received the product of some 1000
> (internal) processes. As they strived for 99% customer satifaction,
> they calculated that this would require processes running at a
> capability level of better than 3 errors out of a 1000000
> possibilities. This corresponds to processes running at a capability
> of 6 sigma.
> As a concept, I consider this to be very strong as it can be applied
> to any process, being a primary or supporting process, and it does not
> required "re-organization"of any sort. It does require statistical
> knowledge and a management that understand what (statistical)
> variation is all about, which is something you would hope for in any
> organization.
>
> Makes any sense?

Sure it does. But isn't this exactly what we learned in our CQE training? At an ASQ section meeting last night the speaker pooh-poohed CQE training by putting a narrow fence around the Body of Knowledge and pointing out how Six Sigma is so much more.

But his fence was artificial. We learned about Quality Costs in CQE training, didn't we? And didn't we learn about customer satisfaction? And SPC? And process optimization? And team dynamics? And the need to management committment? And how to encourage that? And the futility of trying to manage either a quality or process control effort if you don't have that?

Didn't we learn Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle? Isn't this basically a project plan, or a plan for projects, if you prefer?

As Quality Practitioners, haven't we *always* been focused on the "bottom line" or, if you prefer, PROFITS? Is there anyone in this NG who doesn't realize that satisfied customers pay our salaries?

Haven't we always known about problem statements and definitions? About designed experiments? About Dr. Juran's "vital few and trivial many"?

The Six Sigma speaker was adamant about the need for management committment to make Six Sigma work. Is this unique to Six Sigma? Can't we say the same thing about any quality initiative? Or, for that matter, any initiative at all? Quality? Production? Safety? A new company logo?

I see nothing wrong with Six Sigma, itself. What I *do* see wrong is a program that artifically downgrades the CQE (and other CQx) and then creates a program with a new name that offers little if anything more than the original CQx's do.

Who loses from this? All of the quality practioners who banded together to create the ASQ as "their" (OUR) professional society. We are the people who are "in the trenches" dealing with quality and process issues every day. We are the people who use our CQx certifications to enhance our credibility with our bosses. (Ever in a meeting with upper management where the boss asks "What's the opinion of my CQE's"?)

These people suddenly find their credibility lessened ("What? You only have a CQE,A,RE,M etc.? You don't have a green, black, or chartruese belt?")

And who wins? That's the question, isn't it? Consultants? Not the ones who teach seminars at the ASQ sections. They help make us all better. But how about the ones in the same yacht club as the boss? (Yup, it's happened!) How about ASQ management? Instead of supporting CQx certifications they have (IMHO) detracted from it. Is it fair to ask why?

Six Sigma has had its successes. With managment committment it has succeeded very well, indeed. But they key seems to be the management committment to quality and process, mostly process. And that's simply good management, isn't it?

Respectfully to all members,

Can't we just get rid of the buzzwords and belts and call it what it is?

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

I agree with Al. From the GE Six Sigma Training Manual, The tools and skills of Six Sigma will provide a more efficient way to solve problems and make decisions.

There you go again Al - trying to crush another perfectly good money making industry. :biglaugh:

Dave

Dave,

The way I figure it I can wait till 12 sigma training is the rage and then I'll move in for the kill!:biglaugh:

This post is meant to be a poll. Feel free to add your comments, but on the other hand we have a lot of posts on the pros and cons of Six Sigma.

How do you really feel about Six Sigma? I'd appreciate your vote on the poll. I'd like to know how the folks who visit here feel. Are YOU a Six Sigma believer????

Hi Marc,

Good poll... it will be interesting to see the results. From my previous posts, I believe most everyone knows my stance on 6S. For those who don't... it's a set of tools, just like anything else... a CQE knows as much... I learned the same tool set in my Master's program. The big differences are: the monicker Six Sigma (a rose by any other name), the connotations that monicker now evokes (for good or ill) and the major drawback of mandating a required monitary return value to a project.

Cheers!!

Another choice may have been, it may be an improvement if more people inderstood it. I've been reading about it and it's like learning another language. But, other than large companies touting their achievements, no startling revelations.:smokin:

Like Mike, I keep repeating myself on this subject and in particular, on polls. I love the idea and the intent but once again I am hung up on the method.

Disregard the liking/dis-liking of the "Black Belt" industry which has been established and think only of the philosophy of 6 sigma. The approach, the goal, the tools used. Now, is there anyone who can not say "really works" (forget the added commentary)?

Therein lies the problem with most of these polls. As a quality professional I have to believe in the tools we all use. I have to give the "tools" a top or near top response. If the poll were listing answers applicable to the belief that only a "super-master black belt" could use these tools, I could happily vote for the BS end.

The way the questions are stated, I have to (throw out the first and last because of the additional commentaries) and vote for the highest one I can still agree with. In this case "Valid philosophy ...".

How many times on these boards have I posted my dislike for the "Belt Industry"? Now, I take a nice innocent little poll and VOTE IN FAVOR !!!!!

I feel "POLLED" again - ARGHHHHHHHHH!

Dave

Yes, it is a valid tool; the same tool that CQE's and others have been using for years.
What would make it more noteworthy? Objective evidence! In all the years that I have heard the 6S hype I have never seen a before and after comparison of savings and/or profits. Its just like any other quality improvement tool; if you don't know what its like before, how do you know you have improved after.

Originally posted by D.Scott

Like Mike, I keep repeating myself on this subject and in particular, on polls. I love the idea and the intent but once again I am hung up on the method.
I feel "POLLED" again - ARGHHHHHHHHH!Yup - Polled again! Nothing scientific here - about the only method I have here. Just member's opinions. Most of the members here are not 'top management' but rather the folks in the middle and below. I'm interested in how folks really feel.

I've seen a lot of debate. Like I said, there are several long threads here on the pros and cons. I'm interested less in restating opinions than in everyone's vote.

Marc,

I have voted and will not restate my thoughts, I don't want to bias the audit. You and many regulars know where I stand!

This is not a very good survey since the potential answers are not mutually exclusive. That is, for example, the first two choices BOTH say the CQE knows the stuff, but that doesn't mean the last three are not correct.

I would venture to say a CQE SHOULD know most of this stuff, it IS a valid tool, it IS a philosophy encompassing a set of specific tools (to a great extent, though other tools are always welcome), it really DOES work if implemented correctly, AND, it DOES work better than most people understand (otherwise every company would be using these tools).

So the correct answer is "all of the above, except Total Bull".

Anyone who argues that the Six Sigma program doesn't work, doesn't really know the program. It is a relatively simple but structured application of statistical and quality tools that is results oriented.

Ken,

I was under an assumption that this was not intended to be a "scientific" poll, just a poll of members thoughts.

So far I think the reason for the survey is proving itself.

May I suggest you take a read through the other 6 $igma threads to find, like I have, that so far the results are statistically in line with the members that have so far posted.

You've been a member for awhile so I know you can navigate to those other threads and comments.

Respectfully,

Originally posted by KenK

Anyone who argues that the Six Sigma program doesn't work, doesn't really know the program.

I must have missed something. Did somebody say it didn't work? To me, it's just another fad designed for large companies with gullible management buying into it. Maybe we should change the old saying to "You can't argue about religion, politics and Sick Sixma:biglaugh:

I've been working with manufacturers for about a week now (well, maybe a bit longer) and have noticed one thing in particular. We tend to do just enough to meet the requirement. I’ve seen FMEAs completed after the fact, or numbers changed so no action would have to be taken. I’ve seen 8 Ds completed without looking into the problem. I’ve seen surveys filled out by receptionist that have no idea about the subject. I’ve seen ISO registrations that are really just “paper” systems.

What does this have to do with 6 sigma? I’m not sure….no, really The same rules apply. There will be those who use this tool to work magic and there will be those who attempt to pencil whip it and then complain that it was a waste of time. 6 Sigma, 8 D, PDCA, it really makes no difference. If you want to improve you will find a tool to meet your needs. If you want to avoid improvement, you will misuse any tool given to achieve your desired results.

This includes the Cove


Dave B

Originally posted by db
If you want to avoid improvement, you will misuse any tool given to achieve your desired results.
This includes the Cove
Dave B

Dave,

How so? :smokin:

Misusing Cove


I worked my way through high school and college as an auto mechanic (they’re called technicians now). I would be amazed at how many people would take the word of someone who knows nothing about cars over the word of someone with a great deal of experience. People would say; “my cousin says that leaving the lights on won’t run down the battery. You guys ripped me off.”

Applying that to the cove. Not every post is entirely accurate. If I can find a post that agrees with me, regardless of accuracy, I can run with it. If I were to post that 16949 Second Edition requires 6 Sigma, someone out there will start spreading that around. Oh no, what have I started! By picking and choosing what parts of the Cove I want to use as “fact”, I can abuse the Cove.

Now about your comment “"You can't argue about religion, politics and Sick Sixma”. I know a pastor that is using 6 sigma to run for political office….agh!!!!!:biglaugh:



Dave B (the other Dave)

DB,

Great post, how long have you been in the club?

Yes there is alot of lip service and documentation after the fact. Part of the problem is that a business has a choice to bid on a large product that must be delivered in two weeks or follow their own process of four weeks. (usually big 3)

In all reallity the bottom line is profit, for the supplier and the customer. Can this be changed?

I've seen it very few times. One time was with an owner that was working with Masco. They were hassling him and he finally called their President and said "...have your trucks here in the morning to pick up your machines and whatever product was left.... Or they would be in the parking lot and he would charge them storage. He put them in the parking lot for 3 days until Masco realized they were in trouble and called back and kissed this bastards ass. He would not let Masco put the machines or product back in his plant until he had cash in his hand. I really mean cash!

On another occasion the President instructed me to not accept a PRR from G.M. until we received our traceability information back. The reasoning was that since they wanted traceability that he would stand by their request.

We received a few PRR's and I responded through their system that we would not accept PRR's without the return of traceability data. This went round and round for awhile and finally a plant manager called and told me that all shipping tags and paper were removed from received material before they were moved to storage.

We finally came to an agreement that any of our product shipped would not have any documentation removed.

I know this was a long post and my point was to prove to stand up for your company and keep backup data.

I know Marc, send the soapbox back!

Dave B,

Totally agree with you about possible abusing the Cove. The Cove is an information center. A professional, or in my case not so professional, should use the Cove to gather ideas and viewpoints. It's a great place to get reference material and read life's experiences. That's all it was ever meant to be. If someone uses a quote from a Cove posting as the end all, they are naive. That's polite for stupid. While I see great stuff here, there is a lot of "opinions", including mine.
I misunderstood your reference, so I just asked for clarification. Good answer.
You can also tell when someone is off track with posted information because the "Cheech Wizard" will be the first one swinging the correction bat!:eek: :smokin:

I just thought of another way to abuse the Cove. Right now, I'm supposed to be working on an internal project. Instead, I am uh...uh....conducting research. Yeah, that's it I'm conducting research! Never mind, I guess it is not abusing the Cove.


Dave B (The other Dave)

Misuse of the Cove??

I had better get this disclaimer in print real quick -

Any comments, statements, opinions or other such nonsense made by me is simply the disgruntled ramblings of a frustrated old Quality guy. Never - Ever take what I say as gospel. Even my direct quotes are full of typos and spelling errors.

Although I am just trying to go along with the fun of this string, there is a lot of truth in what has been said. I hope all participants in the Cove treat the posts here the same as they would if we were all sitting around a table having a cup of coffee. It is a great place for help and opinions, but Energy is right on when he says you would be stupid to rely on a post without confirmation.

Dave

I really think we're becoming a bit overly serious here, but... I'm up for it!

Well, here I am to weigh in on this heavy new topic... Defending the turf! I may even split it off as it's own thread late tonight (gotta do certain things with the board shut down so the database doesn't become corrupted) 'cause I find it interesting.

> By picking and choosing what parts of the Cove I want to use
> as "fact", I can abuse the Cove.

Where can you NOT do that? What web site? What library? What information resource can you not do that with? That's what statisticians for politicians are for - choosing the 'correct' figures to make their model fit their purpose.

We all do this every day in life to some degree. We look only at the 'facts' which support our position. Sometimes we do pick and choose from many sources and then make our own decision, but I'd bet that's the exception to the rule in our daily lives. Analysis of the Florida returns from the last election for president in the US is an excellent example. Bush won if... says one source. Gore won if... says another source. Now - where does the 'truth' lie?

> Applying that to the cove. Not every post is entirely
> accurate. If I can find a post that agrees with me,
> regardless of accuracy, I can run with it. If I were to

I assume (and I'm never wrong....) that anyone who visits - whether once or daily - understands that people are people and have opinions. Even in politics - as energy and I have gone through a few bouts (although now it's more in fun than anything). If someone comes to theCove Forums and believes every post is true and accurate because it is on (or in) The Cove Forums is terribly naive to begin with - not to mention the issue of the debates which accompany most threads (topics, whatever).

The Cove is a place to share experiences and opinions. A place to ask questions. A place where many of those here who have been through it try to help others who are going through it. No - we are not always right. But - I know of no single web site or other information source where one can go for 'the truth' whether we're talking about ISO 9001 or micro-physics. Where every word is known truth and indisputable. I will go so far as to say I feel very sorry for anyone who would use information from a post (or many posts for that matter) from the Cove Forums exclusively to cast an opinion or to try to prove something. There are too many other web sites and information sources. In private I'd just call them stupid. (Yeah - I was thinking what energy posted earlier).

Can the Cove be abused? I think it might be more accurate to say The Cove can be misused. Yes, sir - one certainly can misuse information from posts in the Cove Forums.

I do take exception to:

> regardless of accuracy, I can run with it. If I were to
> post that 16949 Second Edition requires 6 Sigma, someone
> out there will start spreading that around. Oh no, what
> have I started!

I don't think the Cove is really visited by enough naive people for you - or anyone - to start a rumour here which will spread like wildfire through the quality assurance community and in the process create a panic or something. Which is sorta what it appears you're implying. That's a bit much. Actually, I think more rumours are quashed here than are started.

I'll take you up on that, however. You go ahead and start a new thread in the 16949 forum stating just what you did above and see how far it gets. Maybe use the title 16949 Second Edition Requires 6 Sigma, leave your post and see how far it flies.

Come here - read - discuss - investigate other resources - and go on. If I find people start seeing the Cove as a Fountain of Truth, I'll be not just surprised, but dumbfounded.

Abuse - I think definition 1 below applies, but misuse might be a more appropriate word choice. Most people tend to think in terms of definition 2 when they hear the word 'abuse'. Like the difference between actually calling a test failure a 'failure' or 'an anomaly' instead. Same thing but people think different things when they hear the word.

Definition 1. to use in an improper or incorrect manner; misuse.
* *Synonyms * misuse (1) , misapply (1) , pervert (2) , misemploy
* *Crossref. Syn. * profane
* *Similar Words * exploit2 , profane , mishandle

Definition 2. to treat in a manner that causes injury or offense.
* *Synonyms * misuse (2) , mistreat , maltreat , ill-use , wrong (1,2) , aggrieve (2) , ill-treat , disrespect
* *Crossref. Syn. * affront , offend , oppress , punish
* *Similar Words * persecute , strike , hurt , molest , mishandle , hit , shaft , batter1 , belabor , harm , manhandle , torment , beat , injure

Definition 3. to talk to or of in an offensive or unfair manner.
* *Example * He abused his friend during an argument.
***************************************
Bottom line: One can abuse one's belly button if one is so inclined.
===================================
Now - a word about the poll. If you have decided to take it seriously - as in a source of a statistic for a paper or something, it's up to you. I was sitting here reading about some things late at night and thought I'd do a poll - in part because the software has the functionality to do 'Polls'.

Now - you can all **** on me if you want for saying this but I would not hesitate to use the results of this poll in a paper, if that was what it was about - which it's not - as long as I cited the conditions, etc. Heck - I see all these polls on how people feel about this or that on TV - well, I've never in my life been called for one of these polls. On TV they cite polls regularly of < 1000 people to infer the opinions of the entire population of the US about many matters (yet the census people are not allowed to use statistical methods for inference from their unbelieveably huge 'sample' of the population). The truth comes in telling all the conditions and circumstances and understanding the biases involved (including what kind of nut comes here in the first place in the case of this poll...)

You may think it was poorly designed - yes - I was sitting her late at night thinking and set up a quickie. I'm not doing my PhD thesis so I didn't really plan the whole thing out. And I started out by saying "... I'd like to know how the folks who visit here feel...". I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm not writing a book. I'm not writing a paper. Not meant to be scientific. Just some fun. But if you see absolutely nothing in the results - if only what a few people who visit here personally believe - then you're blind and glasses won't help.

Originally posted by D.Scott

Misuse of the Cove??

I had better get this disclaimer in print real quick -

Any comments, statements, opinions or other such nonsense made by me is simply the disgruntled ramblings of a frustrated old Quality guy. Never - Ever take what I say as gospel. Even my direct quotes are full of typos and spelling errors.Same for me. :thedeal: I can think of a few other 'disclaimers' I could add for myself, but this will do fine for now...

Duh...:rolleyes:

I used the % stats this morning in conversation with some folks. I stated that a poll was taken of professionals in the quality field and......etc..etc ;)

At times I may be a little glib or playful with answers or information, but generally what I say here is what I say in the world. Call me or write me and ask a question about my specific areas of expertise and you'd get the same answer here with the same pixyness. Tom Peters says not to take yourself too serious and I don't.

This place is a great source for solid info from solid people (and some freaky ones too I guess), but Tom Peters (a favorite of mine) says to get some freaks involved in what you do.

As for getting serious in this place -- :p

I haven't got the thread link off hand, but the folks who write this software state the formula on how the software addresses the input and comes up with its results (equations, etc.). Validity of 'Poll' function results generated by the software has been well discussed in their forums.

The 'polls' can now be multiple choice, too. I haven't read how that function is figuring results. When I'm cruising their boards in the near future I'll see if they tell the formula and logic for figuring results on multiple choice polls. It's a new function with this release.

This whole "Blackbelt thing reminds me of
"The emperor has new clothes"

Is Statistics a good valid tool - "Abso-rootly" (when used for specific problems (and no data "miss-manuplition is involved.)

Do CQE's know/do the same things as blackbelts - Probably but admitedley - not on the same "focus level." (normally they have other duties as well.)

Would everyone be comfortable discussing the issue of the "Plant Statistician" having more or less value than the "Plant Blackbelt"?

I have trouble with the fact that this is being touted as a NEW Approach. I have a reprint of Shewharts book - dealing with applied statstical methods - printed at the beginning of the 1900's

Hi all...

I've yet to see anyone come right out and say that 6S (I like Al's version... 6 $igma :D ) doesn't work. On the contrary... the tools espoused by 6S work just fine when properly applied... but these are just tools. 6S is just a tool, a tool that can be used or misused.

The fundamentals of 6S are sound. Root cause analysis, Ishikawa diagrams, affinity diagrams, Brainstorming, Teams & Team Building, Kan Ban, 5S, JIT, SPC, etc., etc., etc.... These are but tools. Perhaps a better way of putting it... these are the tools in the toolbox of 6S (or Kaizen, or TQM, etc., etc.). These tools have been proven to work. If management wants to call the use of these tools "Bob" - who cares, as long as management is using these tools and the decisions they make are based upon facts, data, etc. as the result of using these tools. ;)

However, I'll reiterate my fundamental problem with Six Sigma... the application of a financial threshhold to determine whether a 6S project is approved or rejected. In my mind, this approach is fraught with danger. First is the law of diminishing returns. How many 6S projects will net a return or savings of $500,000? And once 6S projects stop netting $500K, what next? Do you lower the bar? If so, why wasn't the bar lower to begin with? Are those project now suddenly "worthy" of 6S status? Secondly, and I feel most importantly, what about those projects that have a $0.00 return or savings, yet - provide a value to the stakeholders? There are projects out there that are worth doing but the return is unknown or unknowable... right now. Five or ten years from now - the value may be realized. But that requires a long term vision and unfortunately, too many "leather chairs" are focused on this quarter or, if we're really lucky, this year - but nothing beyond. :(

Ok... I'll get off my high horse before I get a nose bleed... :biglaugh: :smokin:

Cheers!!!

I completed my ASQ 6-Sigma training. I was told once my project was complete, I would be an official 6-Sigma “blackbelt”. Before that could be done, ASQ came out with their test. Now, I’m told that I must take the official ASQ test. Projects I have worked on in the past qualify, so I don’t need to complete the project.

Here is the message I receive. First of all, the test (academia) is more important than the project (real-world). Secondly, even though I paid for the 6-Sigma training with the understanding it would lead to a blackbelt, I must pay more money to take the test. Once again academia takes precedence over ability, credentials over competence.

This is why, I feel that 6-Sigma is doomed! We have forgotten about the tools, we have lost sight of the results, all that is left is the academia.

Michael T states:
------------------------------------------------------
However, I'll reiterate my fundamental problem with Six Sigma... the application of a financial threshhold to determine whether a 6S project is approved or rejected.
-------------------------------------------------------------

That is soooooo true!

Dave B (the other Dave)

Sorry folks, I'm getting real tired of this one.

6 $igma is the same as continuous improvement/project management.

Could I go as far as to say that 6 $igma is just the use of FMEA review with the goal of reducing company measurable numbers?

Sorry, I can't go on. I am too adament against 6 $sigma that my views will become a sham.

Respectfully to all opinions.

Marc,

If you walked on water, somebody would complain your feet are poluting the stream.

"The Cove" is the only place I know of where I can post my opinion and enjoy having dialog with people who agree and people who don't agree (usually because the are wrong ;) ). For the old timers, we know most of the contributors well enough to understand where they are coming from. For the newbies, one or more of the old timers usually posts a response the brings the discussion back to the real world. So, keep posting your "unscientific polls" and your ocassional "soap box diatribes" and we will do the same.

Regards,

Rick

I know I'm always wrong... I don't know what everyone else's excuse is... :thedeal:

I thought I was wrong once - but it turns out I was mistaken... :biglaugh:

The main reasons Marc is wrong most of the time stems from his
being a Liberal Democrat:biglaugh:
A Yankee:eek:
and probably left handed too.:))

Originally posted by energy

This looked a new post dated today, but, lo and behold, it's not! What the :ko: ?Well, little boy (I'm not sure whether I like the fuzzy beard or the white-gray gorilla better...), let me take you by the hand and help you along here. We recently discussed this in http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3770

To summarize, just for you... :rolleyes: When someone votes on a poll, even though they didn't post a reply, their name is logged in as the 'last poster'. The last post date in the thread is also updated.

This makes sense because if someone is following a poll, that makes it obvious when a new 'vote' is cast on that poll. I don't think it's a big deal that the name of the voter is updated, but what the heck. It's how the software works.... :thedeal:

I heard that Ford is looking to eliminate all activities that detract from the process of producing vehicles. I do not want to start any rumors, but I immediately wondered about their 6 sigma plans. I know that sometimes 6 sigma can compete with production resources. If Ford does, how will this affect the struggling 6 sigma movement?

Dave B (the other Dave)
:eek:

Originally posted by db

I heard that Ford is looking to eliminate all activities that detract from the process of producing vehicles. I do not want to start any rumors, but I immediately wondered about their 6 sigma plans. I know that sometimes 6 sigma can compete with production resources. If Ford does, how will this affect the struggling 6 sigma movement?Well, I have to temper myself for a while here about Ford 'cause I have a client one of whose customers is Ford. Ford and Omnex are both REALLY pissed at me because I criticised them in these forums. I won't go into details, but they're being prissy, to say the least.

> I heard that Ford is looking to eliminate all activities
> that detract from the process of producing vehicles.

Every company is looking for ways to eliminate (outsourcing included) activities that do not relate to their core business.

I did some training for Ford a bit over a year ago at one of their facilities on contract. They were so screwed up I quit after a couple of months. I did see in a newsletter - which is somewhere here in a stack of paper - a Six Sigma Initiative announced - in all areas as I remember. But from what I read it was at best 'good press'.

I can't see Ford as a significant factor in success or failure of six sigma in any way. They have enough trouble in so many areas it has amazed me. They seldom return phone calls or respond to e-mails - six sigma isn't going to change the many failure modes Ford is currently experiencing nor is it going to be a 'saviour' for them.

It makes me laugh that six sigma is heralded as a new thing, or the latest breakthrough strategy. I cannot see anything new in it that Shewhart didnt say donkeys years ago.

Hey Al,

In an article written by James Harrington, he notes that Crosby's Zero Defects is 12 Sigma. Don't be late...;)

Regards,

Kevin

Al,

You are missing golden opportunities. There can be a killing at 8 sigma and 10 sigma before we move on to 12 sigma.

On a more serious note, the quest continues. I have received three inquiries the last two weeks for six sigma training. Regardless of my explanations, company management continues to seek the golden fleece (pun intended). :bonk:

Thanks guys, I might have to revise my the Gantt chart for global domination. Yes, I still use them along with pareto C,P,U,CP charts.:vfunny: :vfunny: :bigwave:

I think that the success of six sigma in gaining management and executive commitment is due to the fact that it talks primarily in terms of profit, which is the language and motivator of these people.

Other initiatives have barked on purley about quality for quality's sake. It almost preached as a religion for which you either have faith, or you do not. As such it is difficult for executives and managers to get overly excited, unless its in their job description. Money on the other hand is a global language and has global understanding, and we are all highly motivated to get as much of it as we can.

I think we could all learn to talk of quality, and continuous improvement in terms of profitability - at the end of the day that is what it is all about.

As for the six sigma tools, yes they are all established methods that can be traced back many years.

M.G.,

Good, valid point, money does talk! I agree that in the past continuous improvement might have been more directed by quality gains. Although these do lead to monetary gains the dollar aspect probably should have been more prominent when trying to sell "continuous improvement".:bigwave:

Hey all,
I can comment on Ford's involvement with SS (Six sigma), Though I'm not directly involved within the SS strategy at my Ford location (Windstar).
I spoke recently with a production engineers at the plant who, when asked about the (To date) @ 2 1/2 years implementation of the SS tools and Continuous Improvement projects, he said to me "What are we waiting for?", This statement speaks volumes to me regarding my employers attempts at initialy communicating the tools, techniques and project charters to all at the plant.
Let me give you a bigger picture, the plant has over 2 thousand employees, the majority are production blue collar workers. The biggest hurdle to communicating the SS startegy has been to infuse the tools of SS into the workforce so as to cause a cultural change and foster a partnership of common quality goals and thus the SS strategy is called customer focused SS.
Sufice to say that Ford is in fact diligently using the SS tools very effectively yet, if you were to visit my location and speak with the majority of the production force asking them what SS means to them, you would soon measure the infusion of the SS strategy by the answer of, What's Six sigma?
I won't go on too much yet, I believe that the key to continuous process improvements using the tools of SS is to first of all share the educational knowledge of the power of Statistical thinking, It is well known that Ford was helped along the CI way by Dr Deming and the good Dr's teaching eventually gave way to SS, Dr Deming taught that knowledge of Variation and System thinking were the back bone to any CI initiatives. The SS initiatives that I have seen to date don't give substance to the present and future success of SS and merely tags SS as another fad thig to use such as the ill fated undermined tools of TQM.
Wallace.:evidence:

My Windstar has had 5 recalls to date, how many more are coming? Maybe that ford plant should concentrate on engineering and quality other than making sure the screwdriver is labelled and in the proper place.:confused:

Al,
the same type of comment can come from "YES" even a GM or Chrysler vehicle owner.
I have come to realize that the very nature of the big three is to saturate the market place with vehicles regardless of quality (with a small q). Quality with a big Q, is rarely practiced within the big three OEM's.
Why would I say such a thing (Being a Ford employee)? Well, it's quite clear that, we here in North America are the mass producers of the world without limit and market control, In reality we satisfy the most important part of the systems in place at each manufacturer "The stockholder".
The big three OEM's have become the uncontrolable behemoths of the western world placing the customer way down the list of importance.
I can say with experience that Quality systems have done very little to improve quality outputs, "stickers and tags" have no use to the employees who perform the processes that are in essence supposed to deliver Quality to the customer. In view of the lack of Quality outputs from North American manufacturers, a new pro- active approach is needed allowing manufacturing employees at all levels to become more internaly motivated, being allowed to make quality decisions that effect quality outcomes. I laugh out loud when I see the so called Customer focused Six sigma strategy or tragedy at work and to further see that the production employees who are the closest to the customer both internaly and externaly are disgarded and disregarded as being unimportant to the voice of the process until the process fails or is seen to produce defects.
Wow, I'm glad I got that off my chest.
Wallace
;)

Wallace,

Respectfully, I was not trying to pick on Ford per se, I'm sure they all do it. Although I still see some in-adequacy in comparing 5S with quality.

I've owned cars from all of the american carmakers. So far in my experience Ford is at the bottom of the list for initial quality on some vehicles.

I drive a 1997 Ranger with 90,000 miles on it and have never had a major problem. My wife drives the Windstar and it is in the shop about 4 times per year.

The one saving grace is that the Ford dealership I work with is top notch and keep me informed of needed information.


How about this, the worst car I ever bought was a Ponrtiac 6000 (used) with 35,000 miles. Brakes, transmission, shocks, gas tank, carb, I finally traded it in for a Ranger.

No Worries Al,
I certainly don't take offence to legitimate concerns and complaints against my employer, customers should have more of a voice IMO.
I hope that I gave you a bigger picture of the nature of the auto industry in North America.
I happen to believe that the big three build excellent vehicles yet, It is apparent that the definition of Quality needs to be redifined and standardized within the auto industry, there is no consensus regarding the definition of quality and standardization relating to quality tools and processes, I find a recuring problem of the lack of definitions relating to CP/CPK indices between suppliers and customers, it just causes so much confusion and at the end of the day many quality rejects (Quality inspectors are alive and kicking at Ford)
Wallace..
:bigwave:

Quality inspectors are alive and kicking at Ford
I agree Wallace and it's not just because they are our parent company. My feeling is that a majority of the issues are due to supplier problems and labor (union) regulations. We noticed a big bottleneck in one of the door assembly processes and began investigating the "root cause". When establishing the cycle time it was stopped because union rules will not allow us to time the person only the machine. The robots had already been baselined during initial set up and dry run so the only cause of the bottleneck had to come from something not introduced during the dry run. I ended up using a few managers and a couple other engineers to evaluate what was happening. We did show it was a personnel issue, and for our trouble we had a union grievance put in on us and were not allowed to put in all the necessary/desired changes. :bonk:

I worked with a final assembly plant several years ago. The work was dual focused. First, they wanted to improve quality (at the time 1/3 of vehicles coming off the line went to "rework". Secondly, they wanted to add some lean manufacturing initiatives to the plant. Every time we attempted to institute a change, it was met with great resistance. After several weeks on frustration, we cornered the plant manager (literally) and demanded an explanation. The explanation was that this plant was graded solely on the number of VINs scanned in at the end of the line. HQ didn’t care if they ran or not, if they had wheels or not, only the amount. I suggested that if it didn’t matter whether they were “quality” builds, then why don’t they just scan in the entire production schedule for the year and be done. As it was 1/3 of the vehicles were not saleable, so what is the difference. (I tend to say things like that) I was promptly removed from the project.

Now, I will admit this was before the days of sick stigma, but I will be willing to bet the metrics for assembly plants have not changed a great deal. Perhaps plant managers now have sick stigma requirements, but the end result is still probably just number of VINs scanned.

db,
You speak more that a grain of truth when you speak of the VIN's.:o Your past situation may just be the same at my location. :frust:
Randy,
You make an excellent point when you say that the UNION grieves a point and you are blocked from implementing the necessary CI changes:mad: I would be mad if this happened although, I'm sure you agree that the union is a necessary evil in the auto industry, I'm sure I commented on this situation in a previous thread.
Wallace.:bigwave:

Just a thought,

I have been promoted a few times and none of those promotions came from me being a member of a union.

I fact the two jobs I lost early in my career development were union jobs. One with the UAW and one with the Teamsters. Neither one offered me more than a handshake and good luck when the plants closed down.

Don't people realize that the federal government has taken over about 80% of former union duties.

I remeember my first real job where they had the UAW. The leadership told management they were going to strike if we did not receive an immediate raise. We won!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We all got a 10% increase and a pink slip 4 months later.

Unions have had their place and been succesful, but government has taken uo alot of that slack. These days you have to wonder why your union payment is like a credit card payment. You don't even have a choice if it is taken out of your gross. Maybe the unions feel thet the dues will not be paid if it is voluntary.

Yea Yea Yea, Soap box again!!!1

Al Dyer said:

Just a thought,

*snip*
Don't people realize that the federal government has taken over about 80% of former union duties.
*snip
Unions have had their place and been succesful, but government has taken uo alot of that slack. These days you have to wonder why your union payment is like a credit card payment. You don't even have a choice if it is taken out of your gross. Maybe the unions feel thet the dues will not be paid if it is voluntary.

Yea Yea Yea, Soap box again!!!1

Hi Al,

You have a very valid point. What really is amazing, and I don't know how many people know this or not, but Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal to have a safety committee, a quality committee, quality of life committee, etc. Anything that infringes upon what appears to be a "union activity" is deemed illegal. Talk about a crock! :mad:

Just a little food for thought.

Cheers!!!

Randy wrote.
We did show it was a personnel issue, and for our trouble we had a union grievance put in on us and were not allowed to put in all the necessary/desired changes.

Randy,
You might want to consider rewritting the Work Proces Sheet (WPS) that the operator should follow, this sheet of work procedures are the best defence when dealing with an operator problem regarding work processes, of course more Training may be the additional key to resolving implementing changes that would allow the outputs of the task to be measured as effective and efficient. The union will usually jump on those two issues.
Wallace.

Having worked in the auto industry for 13 years, if you have a car that doesn't get a recall, you are lucky. Very little of substance has changed regarding quality, unless you can figure out how copying a FMEA over and over again to satisfy some Ford engineer is supposed to improve quality. Not once in my many new product launches were we given the time necessary to actually do they things they demanded. The sad part is that the quality powers that be continue to make things worse by trumpeting the latest fad. Any good quality engineers that were given even a part of the resources some companies dedicate to Six Sigma could solve most problems. We need to stage a revolution to take quality back. :thedeal: All the tools in TQM and Six Sigma can be helpful if we don't go overboard. I saw one article where the author claimed there was no problem Six Sigma couldn't fix.:( Hyperbole like that is just stupid, and makes us all look like idiots.

Make a bet every day, you may be walking around lucky and not know it


:bigwave:

I’m new one but interested in this subject, so please accept my contribution:

Six Sigma has its successes. It seems to be a management technique with associated tools. With management commitment it has succeeded. But the others managerial techniques succeeded too.

Last week I had the visit of one expert of KAIZEN institute of France in my location, and I was surprised to see under UMBRELA: 6 sigma. For me that is the CONTINOUS ADAPTING even for the KAIZEN philosophy.

The reason can be very simple: MOTOROLA, GENERAL ELECTRIC,…, got a lot of money, based on this “concept”. Or, money is a global language with a global understanding. And this is very important mainly for our days.

This is new? like 6 sigma?

Of coarse not. But, I think that we have to consider 6 sigma, as I found my self.

I saw papers showing that 6 sigma it is more large than KAIZEN and ISO.
I saw that 6 sigma it is now under KAIZEN umbrella.
ISO 9000 –2000 seems to be very close to KAIZEN…..

vio

Welcome to the Cove.

Your contributions are not only welcomed but they are encouraged.

Your observation here is very good. Isn't it strange that no matter how much things change they always seem to remain the same?

Again - Welcome.

Dave

Dear Dave,

Thanks for reply. Yes, you are right. "A phenomenon will be said to be controlled when, through the use of past experience, we can predict, at least within limits, how the phenomenon will vary in the future" said Shewhart long time ago. We can recognize that we are doing lots for that.

Therefore, in order to better win the hearts and minds of others and to encourage them to enjoy the benefits of Shewhart's creation, Dr. Donald J. Wheeler propose to use a new terminology. For example, instead of Statistical Process Control, to speak about Continual Improvement. And this is more convenient as original explanation of Shewhart. And this is still valid in our day.
How? Depend on the management philosophy.

There's an elusive balance between chasing after each new management tool or method, and ignoring the fact that we have actually learned some things about management over the past 100,000 years. The best tools are those which stand the test of time, and which give you a lot of leverage over common problems, from [The Web's Management Library Modern Management Methods: http://www.skymark.com/resources/methods/methods_main.asp]

vio

They're doing a survey. If any of you folks take it and also remember to look in the Feb issue, let's see how we compare...

In the meantime, if you haven't voted in this thread (only about 60 have to date) take a minute to register your opinion.

Also see: Six Sigma - A debate of the validity of Six Sigma (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1899)

and

Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=2000)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take Quality Digest's Second Annual Six Sigma Survey!

Six Sigma: Whether you love it or hate it, there’s no denying that it has had a dramatic impact on quality. Millions of dollars have been spent on implementing it, and billions of dollars have been saved by the organizations that use it.

But how far has Six Sigma really penetrated corporate America? Is it just for corporate giants like GE, Motorola and Ford, or can mom and pop shops reach the Six Sigma promised land?

We hope to find answers to these and other questions with our second Six Sigma survey.

The survey is divided into four sections: using Six Sigma at your company, the impact of Six Sigma at your company, perceptions of Six Sigma and information on companies that do not have a Six Sigma program in place.

The survey consists of 31 questions and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We would like to you participate in the survey even if your organization doesn't currently have a Six Sigma process in place.

We’ll publish the results of the survey in our February 2003 issue.

To take the survey, simply access our surveys Web page: *** DEAD LINK REMOVED*** If you have already taken this survey in the past three weeks, please do not take it again. _

Thank you

Dirk Dusharme
Technology Editor
Quality Digest

Marc said:

They're doing a survey. If any of you folks take it and also remember to look in the Feb issue, let's see how we compare...




Took the survey last week... Very disappointing and very biased. They only have a few questions for those of us who DON'T do Sick Sigma and don't give us any way to say why we don't. I guess they don't want to know what we think of it (6S) and why we have made the conscious decision not to be led down that path. :smokin: I guess they believe in the adage that if you don't want to know the answer - don't ask the question... :ko:

Cheers!!!

Anyone have anything new to say about six sigma or did we say it all in this thread?

Marc,
Two responses I don't recall seeing posted;
- Return on investment?, short term & long term results?
- Continuing projects - after completing the required project,has their been other projects started and completed successfully?

I tend to agree with the sentiment that it is a "rose" by another name. Philosophically, I've learned more than TQM-CQI initiatives at my facility. However, the approach and ultimate goal of Six-Sigma is no different that the plant-wide TQM-CQI training we implemented back in 1995.

Contrary to one of the comments above, implementation of Six-Sigma plant-wide need not be done via the "mandated monetary return" for the ideas, so much as it demonstrate how the associated reduction in waste (in terms of dollars) goes right to your company's bottom-line... something that was missing (as I recall) in all of the TQM-CQI training.

another thought on 6S... I'm not a CQE, but I basically practice in that capacity and am reasonably to very fluent in the tools and stats involved in their use. I'm also...I (seem to) dare say here a six sigma black belt.

I read the first few pages of comments on this thread and, as they seemed quite similar, I then skipped to this comment. It seems from a number of posts that there's a general feeling approaching 'sour grapes' with respect to "6S is just what CQE's have known all along..." Not having the CQE cert I can only guess that the statement may be correct...probably is. It seems to me that what folks are missing here is, in the end, who cares if 6S is a re-packed CQE body of knowledge? I too believe, and have the training to know, that 6S is a (re-)bundle of best knowledge & practice from a number of different areas. The key though is it is a bundle of best practices wrapped in packaging that gets the attention of senior management. With that attention, in some cases, comes adopting some or all of the 6S package and from this comes higher reliability, process capability, & a better quality product. Isn't this the goal of any quality professional? While it may be that a good CQE could achieve what a 6S program might...one has to wonder why some of the companies that have formally adopted 6S, and likely have CQE's on staff, didn't adopt the "CQE equivalent to 6S" before 6S came along. If it takes the 6S sexy name & slick packaging to get the message through...so be it...whatever works.

As for the poll...6S must be a valid body of knowledge...if it were not, & a CQE is basically the same knowledge, then wouldn't a CQE knowledge base be invalid too?

As for the poll...6S must be a valid body of knowledge...if it were not, & a CQE is basically the same knowledge, then wouldn't a CQE knowledge base be invalid too?
:biglaugh: Great post KMAAA, but as every good black belt knows we need to do some more tests before we can make that judgement :biglaugh: .

All joking aside, you make a very good point and I don't think too many here are knocking the black belts themselves. As you say, you are doing you job the same as everybody else and with probably a lot more directed effort. Most of us 6S "bashers" are referring to the marketing part of 6S. The industry that professes to have "invented" a new and wonderful system. A system which unless taught by them is unacheivable. That use of these new quality techniques by anyone other than a master black belt is condemned to failure.

Please accept my apologies for any of my comments you felt were offensive. I assure you they are aimed at the industry, certainly not at a fellow quality professional who happens to be a black belt. :truce:

Dave

Hi, everyone.

I agree with Dave's, and other's, sentiments that the marketing of six sigma is a little unsavory, IMO.

But, if there is one thing that six sigma stresses that quality professionals (myself especially included) seem to miss is tying what we do to the bottom line. I'm willing to "put up" with the marketing bit of six sigma if it gets us (and helps to get me) talking to the folks in the board room rather than at them.

Just the opinion of a non-black belt.

Craig

I agree with everyone above also (KMAAA, Dave S., & Craig H.), but have always cringed when people say the difference is "tying it to the bottom line". :bonk: One of the main sections of the CQE BoK is "Quality Cost Analysis", and Cost of Quality reporting has been around a long time. Deming, Crosby, Juran, et alia often emphasized how improved quality raises profitability (e.g. Juran's Quality Handbook sections 7 and 8).

I'm sure you didn't mean, Craig, that previous QA activity did not consider the bottom line - just that CEOs more likely associate 6S with the bottom line ( due to the 6S marketing). It's just a sore spot, that's all. :truce:

I agree with everyone above also (KMAAA, Dave S., & Craig H.), but have always cringed when people say the difference is "tying it to the bottom line". :bonk: One of the main sections of the CQE BoK is "Quality Cost Analysis", and Cost of Quality reporting has been around a long time. Deming, Crosby, Juran, et alia often emphasized how improved quality raises profitability (e.g. Juran's Quality Handbook sections 7 and 8).

I'm sure you didn't mean, Craig, that previous QA activity did not consider the bottom line - just that CEOs more likely associate 6S with the bottom line ( due to the 6S marketing). It's just a sore spot, that's all. :truce:


Rob, you are quite right, of course, about the CQE, Deming, Crosby, Juran, and others. What I was referring to is, in practice (and this is a generalization - some it fits, some not) Q Practicioners can miss the forest for the ISO 9000, documentation, calibration, corrective action (etc., ect. ad nasuem) trees. I am as guilty of it as the next. If the promotion of six sigma can get CXOs to see quality as an asset ($), and help quality people sell the idea that it is, then whatever negatives go with it will be outweighed, IMO.

Agree?

Craig

No offense taken on my part.

About a year ago(before I took the 6S training) the local Operations VP came to me one day & handed me a stack of bound powerpoint slides from some 6S overview day-long session he went to . He said..."tell me what you think of this." At that time I had no idea what the content of 6S training was all about. I looked over the slides...and wrote him back that there was nothing in the slides that couldn't be done without a 6S program..and that a few slides had a number of fundamental errors in them. I told him any organized stats/numbers based quality program could achieve what the slides were claiming as the "output from a 6S program..."

A couple months later, in response to additional higher up pressures, the VP then asks if I want to be trained as a black belt....I'd never given it much thought, but stats are entertaining so I says, sure...why not?

The key is that this VP got interested in the very topic we're all interested in due to some glitz & glitter package called "Six Sigma Black Belt" (ta..da..where's my cape?). For me..."getting there" is path independent. If it takes glitz & glitter...it's a sound bite world...so be it.

As for the marketing....it isn't so much that 6S invented anything...(it's a very tight & practical body of knowledge...by far, more than anything else, it's structured/organized project management with lots of stats to get you there)..the marketing is just marketing...whether you're selling "Bowflex" machines or Celebrex it's all snake oil & mirrors to turn a buck. There's lots of money to be made in 6S training(or selling any fad program to corporate execs)....so there's lot's of people buzzing about how they can cure all your ills with their new & original approach. Fact is, the people that "buy" the 6S type programs really don't know the difference between 6S being new or not...so everyone gets what they want...it's the american way...

No offense taken on my part.

As for the marketing....it isn't so much that 6S invented anything...(it's a very tight & practical body of knowledge...by far, more than anything else, it's structured/organized project management with lots of stats to get you there)..the marketing is just marketing...whether you're selling "Bowflex" machines or Celebrex it's all snake oil & mirrors to turn a buck. There's lots of money to be made in 6S training(or selling any fad program to corporate execs)....so there's lot's of people buzzing about how they can cure all your ills with their new & original approach. Fact is, the people that "buy" the 6S type programs really don't know the difference between 6S being new or not...so everyone gets what they want...it's the american way...

Outstanding reply. Well said. No frills. Some of us have been saying that for years. No lecture like "you just don't get it". Your candidness is a welcome sight. Good luck with the Black belt and the extra income! :thanx:

If you are still working on your thesis, I have a Literature Reference: "Six Sigma In Metaphor: Heresy or Holy Writ". It is in the Janurary edition of Quality Progress on page 25. I'm sure it is relevant, but I have no comment on it's veracity.

Good Luck,

Tom

I've been observing this thread with unabated interest for some time now and, I have to say, the thread shows the vast expertise that is available at the Cove. I have great respect for you all.
I've had very little exposure to the 6S jugernaut but, I have been a keen observer of it's grand introduction, attempted infusion and embarassing demise at my location.
Here's my observations.

I have personaly witnessed the grand introduction of 6S at my Ford location almost 3 years ago now. It's intriguing to see the enthusiasm of middle and upper management regarding, an almost overnight change of quality related language; DPMO, capability, process noise, special and common cause and that very scary word "Variation".

I have also personaly witnessed the attempted infusion of the knowledge, tools and techniques into the production area's of my production facility.
I'm sure you've been one of the engineers who, travels throughout the production system Defining, Measuring, Analyzing, Improving (through 6s eye's) and Controling your improvements.

This was looked at with intrigue by most of the labour, who had (Past tense)a genuine interest in the tools and techniques of 6S.
Here's what has happened at my location;
The 6S tools and techniques were thrown into the production area's with all of the glitz of a major advertizing campaign and, the labour force was left completely out in the cold regarding being informed of the power of statistical tools for improvement and what these great tools would do for their understanding of their respective work proceses.

I witnessed the embarrassing demise of 6S at my location when, I saw the most senior engineers either moving on to other companies or being fired because they did not deliver the "short term goodies" (The very words of the most senior engineer). I was told by some of the folk involved with 6S that, they intended to "fatten up" their resumes and move on when they got the opportunity.

The labour side of this snapshot is that, they were being cast aside because it was and still is the official company line that, "the tools and techniques of statistical process control are of no use to a process operator".
Well, you can guess what has happened, anytime a well intentioned engineer approaches as process operator, they get the proverbial "rubber ear", "cold shoulder (Call it what you will).
6S at my location has now become something that is indeed practiced but not openly spoken of.
This all may sound rather negetive yet, there are some within the production area's that have independently attended course for SPC and 6S. Will they ever get to use their taught skills where the most important processes take place? I think not.
6S has been given an almost middle class status and has therefore by its very nature excluded the most important part of any process, "people".
Just my observation FWIW.
Wallace.

Attached is a map that I compiled to give a brief overview of Six Sigma.
The map was accepted for use but never used due to the acceptance problems of the hourly labour process owners.
I guess it could be used as the proverbial elevator conversational piece.
Feel free to use it if you wish, or I can send it to whoever needs it.
Wallace

Attached is a map that I compiled to give a brief overview of Six Sigma.
The map was accepted for use but never used due to the acceptance problems of the hourly labour process owners.
I guess it could be used as the proverbial elevator conversational piece.
Feel free to use it if you wish, or I can send it to whoever needs it.
WallaceWow! Your map is better than charts in any textbook I've seen on 6S. I sure hope you are appreciated by the suits in the front office. It would be a shame if they just took you for granted. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Wes, :thanx:
I am viewed as an off-the wall kind of system thinker at my Ford location.
An anomaly for sure in the established processes of the Ford Production System (FPS).
I have used a program called Mind Genius www.mindgenius.com to compile and form the Mind mapped format you see in the map.
Again, I'll admit that, this kind of communications isn't for everyone yet, I have found it invaluable to me and, others who are receptive to Mind mapping as an excellent form of information management and presentation tools.
Wallace.

If you are an ASQ member you probably saw this interesting article on Six Sigma -"Heresy or Holy Writ". Link below can take you to it. Still have to be a member to read the full version, I'm afraid.

Affirms much of the ground covered in this thread.

http://www.asq.org/portal/page?_pageid=33,39211,33_39258&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&in_url=/pub/qualityprogress/past/0104/41match0104.html

Thanks Wes, :thanx:
I am viewed as an off-the wall kind of system thinker at my Ford location.
An anomaly for sure in the established processes of the Ford Production System (FPS).
I have used a program called Mind Genius www.mindgenius.com to compile and form the Mind mapped format you see in the map.
Again, I'll admit that, this kind of communications isn't for everyone yet, I have found it invaluable to me and, others who are receptive to Mind mapping as an excellent form of information management and presentation tools.
Wallace.
Hey Wallace, I thinkk your maps are great, but how do you get them to print on one page of standard paper, 81/2 X 11, or 11 X 14? I wanted to show my boss one, but can't get it to print on 1 page. Also what file type can it be saved in? These are great maps, you have done an excellant job of putting these together. Thanks for sharing

Never mind the question for help--finally figured out how to save as word.doc
and print on one page.
Thanks again Wallace

Hi Ralph,
Since I have saved my maps as images and then zipped them for ease of posting at the cove, you may wish to open the Jpeg file and plot the image onto paper of any size you wish. Alternatively, you may wish to save the image file to a memory stick, disc or floppy and have a printer print or plot your required images for presentation purposes.
Mind maps can and do become very complex and thus, if you are intending to print or plot a map for use as a presentation, you really have to plot the map onto a large architectural sized type of paper.
If you are using the current Mind genius program, you can indeed easily save your mapped information as a Word doc or PowerPoint presentation.
Wallace.

Here is the latest issue of Inside Six Sigma for all who are interested.

** DEAD LINK REMOVED **

Dave

The link died, Dave. I removed it.

I want to view Wallace's zipped 6S map, but can't find the right format to open it in. I'm not very experiences with winzip. Please help!

Jennifer (I can work this computer thing, really)

Jennifer,
What format would you like to have the image in?
I generally have to save the maps as an image (Quite a few image format options) yet, I can convert it to PDF, Word or Powerpoint.
If you don't have the program of origin (Mind genius or Mind manager), I have no choice but to save the image as an image.
Didn't I already send the image to you in image a doc formats a few weeks ago?

Wallace.

My experience with 6S:

I left GE Appliances in 4/96 for another company in Chicago. At the time I left, my title was advanced quality engineer, and the 6S team from corporate was just starting black belt training a ramping up the program. My department met with the corporate group to learn more about 6S, and what it really meant.

The statement was made to us at the time that our refrigerator business as a whole was operating at around a Cpk level of 1.3, or 4 sigma, and that we were working towards 6 sigma. This was an amazing statement to our group as we had been the ones monitoring the Cpk values of our critical dimensions in the plant for quite some time, and we knew that our average Cpk values was probably around .8 or .9. We asked how this 1.3 value was calculated. We were told it was based upon the number of returns or field repairs versus the number of units sold, calculating a dpm value which then could be correlated to a Cpk or sigma level. :mg:

I've been skeptical and leery of 6S ever since.

Other concerns and observations I seen over the years:
1) I've heard ASQ member comments and seen the general approach and viewpoint from ASQ be that anything that brings attention to Quality and the quality tools is good, and therefore even though 6S may be a re-hash of TQM or CQE tools, the publicity is still good.
In my opinion, Quality publicity of this kind can make quality a flavor-of-the-month fad, rather than a way of life. This can ultimately hurt ASQ and quality professionals in the long run if companies decide "this fad is not for us at this time."

2) Quality does not need to be a mysterious calculation or complicated set of tools requiring months of study to be followed by a 6S belt certification. SPC, DOE, FMEA, etc. all have there place but all of the companies I've worked at so far needed to start with a simple process focus, monthly defect trend graph and a Pareto chart of defect types. This is probably 90% of it, and I feel the process focus is the biggest benefit of the new ISO standard. The other tools can be used when needed for specific instances of corrective action.

Andy

My experience with 6S:

I left GE Appliances in 4/96 for another company in Chicago. At the time I left, my title was advanced quality engineer, and the 6S team from corporate was just starting black belt training a ramping up the program. My department met with the corporate group to learn more about 6S, and what it really meant.

I've been skeptical and leery of 6S ever since.

Andy

Andy,

Since you worked at GE under the Jack Welch era, have you read his book "Straight From the Gut". I just finished reading it and he has a chapter on Six Sigma. Here are some quotes from it.

"In the early 1990's, we flirted with a Deming program in our aircraft engine business, I didn't buy it as a companywide initiative because I thought it was too theoretical."

On Mikel Harry in 1995: "For four solid hours, he jumped excitedly from one easel to another, writing down all kinds of statistical formulas. I couldn't tell if he was a madman or a visionary. Most of the crowd, including me, didn't understand much of the statistical language."

On his wakening to the real meaning of Six Sigma in 1998: "He [Piet van Abeelen, a GE global manager] got us all to understand that Six Sigma was about one thing - variation!. We had all studied it, including me, in the class with the paper airplanes. But we never saw it the way Piet laid it out. He made the connection between averages and variation. It was a breakthrough.

We got away from averages and focused on variation by tightening what we call span.... We were three years into Six Sigma before we got it. Span reduction was easy for everyone to understand and became a rallying cry at every level of the organization."

Any comments?

Bill

We got away from averages and focused on variation by tightening what we call span.... We were three years into Six Sigma before we got it. Span reduction was easy for everyone to understand and became a rallying cry at every level of the organization."

Hi Bill,
would you care to explain and expand on "SPAN".
Wallace.

Wallace,

The book does not specifically define span but it does have some drawings and an example explaining the meaning. The drawing shows a normal distribution curve with an average value (what the customer wants) and the highest and lowest values around the average (what the customer gets). Span is the difference between the highest and lowest value.

The example given is a customer requested delivery time of 8 days but some got delivery in 17 days while others got delivery in 2 days equating to a span of 15 days.

Quoting Welch: "If we reduced product delivery times from an average of 16 days to 8 days, for example, we saw it as a 50 percent improvement. Foolishly we were celebrating. Our customers, however, felt nothing - except variance and unpredictability."

Welch goes on to explain that span reduction became the measurement for getting the customers what they really wanted. He considered variation and span as a universal concept that could be used by GE world wide.

Before anyone asks, at no time did Welch talk about control charts, standard deviation etc. Based on Andy's comments, I am sure they were used, but Welch was better able to relate to span to understand the statistics. To Welch, it appears that the concept of span became Six Sigma.

Hope this helps.

Bill

I feel like I got lost in a thesaurus and can't get out.

Measures of dispersion include: variance, standard deviation, range, "span", etc. It appears the definition given below equates "span" to "range", i.e. highest value minus lowest value. In principle they are all the same. The less dispersion the better. I've always said that the perception of high quality is often related to consistency.

Jack probably found that a common word like "span" would get better acceptance than the term "standard deviation", which appears as statistical jargon; but then again, his "six sigma" should have been simply called "short span". :yes:

Andy,

Since you worked at GE under the Jack Welch era, have you read his book "Straight From the Gut". I just finished reading it and he has a chapter on Six Sigma. Here are some quotes from it.

"In the early 1990's, we flirted with a Deming program in our aircraft engine business, I didn't buy it as a companywide initiative because I thought it was too theoretical."

On Mikel Harry in 1995: "For four solid hours, he jumped excitedly from one easel to another, writing down all kinds of statistical formulas. I couldn't tell if he was a madman or a visionary. Most of the crowd, including me, didn't understand much of the statistical language."

On his wakening to the real meaning of Six Sigma in 1998: "He [Piet van Abeelen, a GE global manager] got us all to understand that Six Sigma was about one thing - variation!. We had all studied it, including me, in the class with the paper airplanes. But we never saw it the way Piet laid it out. He made the connection between averages and variation. It was a breakthrough.

We got away from averages and focused on variation by tightening what we call span.... We were three years into Six Sigma before we got it. Span reduction was easy for everyone to understand and became a rallying cry at every level of the organization."

Any comments?

Bill

Hi Bill,

I have not read the book, but based on the quotes presented and personal experience I have learned two things:

1) We need to become better teachers. SPC, DOE, FMEA, etc. can be very dry, boring topics for most people. Interestingly enough, I'm currently in the middle of an Accelerated Learning seminar and it is very interesting to learn about different techniques that can be used to address the four learning styles. Without getting into it too much, basically we need to avoid theoretical PP presentations and slides, and move more towards the red bead experiments, catapolts DOE contests, paper airplanes, etc. and use more hands-on activity-based learning activities.

2) Variation reduction is a good focus to take (on some things). But this also assumes that we know exactly where the problem areas are to apply some of the tools we have to reduce variation. It has been my experience in most places everybody has there own feeling about where the problems are, but it is not fact-based. So I like to start with a simple process focus, process metric, and a simple Pareto chart to show where the key problems are. Then when there is a need for a specific quality tool, apply the training at that point.

Andy

Jack probably found that a common word like "span" would get better acceptance than the term "standard deviation", which appears as statistical jargon; but then again, his "six sigma" should have been simply called "short span". :yes:

Rob,

You may want to look at the posting that Andy contributed as a result of my original post. Andy did not mention it specifically but training people would include training management. Using terminology that management can relate to and accept will probably gain more support from them for the application of quality concepts.

Now here is where I may get tarred and feathered and banished to the netherworld - I think that Six Sigma is a way to sell the quality concepts to management. :mg: If Jack Welch wants to believe that Six Sigma is span and the quality professionals get to use their statistical and quality knowledge also, isn't that okay?

Six Sigma cannot ignore the concepts of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi etc. because it has its roots in the quality history. Six Sigma is just the way to market the concepts.

Bill

Using terminology that management can relate to and accept will probably gain more support from them for the application of quality concepts.

:agree1: Terminology and the understanding of, is the key to infusing quality tools and techniques.



Six Sigma cannot ignore the concepts of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi etc. because it has its roots in the quality history. Six Sigma is just the way to market the concepts.

Well they are ignored and, the fact that they are generaly ignored sounds the death knell for strategies such as six sigma. :nopity:
Wallace.

Using terminology that management can relate to and accept will probably gain more support from them for the application of quality concepts.

Absolutely! It's the only way you stand a chance.

Well {the concepts of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi etc.} are ignored and, the fact that they are generaly ignored sounds the death knell for strategies such as six sigma.

Absolutely again!

This is a sorta old, but still relevant, related thread:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3805

Now here is where I may get tarred and feathered and banished to the netherworld - I think that Six Sigma is a way to sell the quality concepts to management. :mg: If Jack Welch wants to believe that Six Sigma is span and the quality professionals get to use their statistical and quality knowledge also, isn't that okay?

Six Sigma cannot ignore the concepts of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Taguchi etc. because it has its roots in the quality history. Six Sigma is just the way to market the concepts.

Bill

Well, Bill I don’t think I agree. My main objection stems from the fact that I don’t think most of the more important managerial concepts, especially those championed by deming made it to the six sigma model.

First there is no specific warning against management by objective (or to be more specific management by numerical target). In fact, since a numerical goal can be tied to a monetary sum—we can increase the abuse of management by objective, championing light, cheap bandages instead of real cures to process problems.
Second, Personally six sigma has distanced me (and others) from process improvement. No longer is a home-made CQE ‘good’ enough—I must be picked for green belt at least. Most quality gurus champion having more people look at and improve the process, not less.
Thirdly, Six sigma focuses on $$$. While that’s very respected in higher circles, not all dollar savings are real improvements in the process. Also, sometimes legitimately needed process improvement (less span) may not be considered worth a lot of money.

I think key concepts of quality management should be brought directly to the attention of management, not just as footnotes in the back of the six sigma handbook.

My own belief is that for Motorola, six sigma WAS a good acronym for quality improvement (especially with real, proven high cost due to excessive ‘span’).

It doesn’t work with everybody, though. If good advice from the ‘gurus of quality’ remains untaken, six sigma can be a particularly POOR substitute from studying and proving that demings/taguchi/ and juran’s ideas are valuable. In our case, deming, taguchi, and juran’s ideas AREN’T taken—and six sigma isn’t pointing out the flaws to our general approach.

For reference;
My green belt training (borrowed a friends), contains no mention of the dangers of management by numerical objective.
Also, project are to be conducted Only if they have a considerable $$$ impact. (Green belt training) I believe this is just poor management. Reduced costs from eroding customer sales just can’t always be reliably calculated. A process improvement specialist should have the ability to justify and win limited project approval on merits OTHER then calculated $$$; if he can prove several real consequences (which may be incalculatable).

No tar and feathering. I have spoken widely on six sigma, already. I reserve the right to babel on about it, so I can sort out what makes sense and what doesn’t.
Six sigma has potential, its just that for us (and some other examples I have been studying)—it needs extreme customization. (but that would mean management would have to change their mind, and we’ve done the same thing SO long…)

So bill (and others) in the name of continued conversation, what can a powerful quality manager do (or say) to help bring all the truths of the quality revolution to the six sigma effort. Am I missing notes from my green belt training that would go on to some of these topics??

:truce:

Hi J and others.

I,m a Quality Supervisor in Brazil, and we don't have so many experienced examples concerning Six Sigma implementation here, but I hope we could learn with forums like this. I've read many articles and books about 6S, and i'm intending to do a Grren Belt course next January.
I just wanna say that I agrre with your piot, J, but at the same time, we, quality workers (and fans) must be a great salesmen to show the 6S philosophy and convince the top managers to use this system, even the tools used are so well-known, but the target of the 6S team is specific and have to hold a great financial advantage (economy).
Finally, 6S must be taken in a serious way, thinking on companies development.

Regards,
Joao Luiz

A recent discussion with a newly hired salesman rekindled in me a need to tackle the six sigma vs. traditional quality question, again. He came into my office and asked me if I was “certified”. I said that some people consider me certifiable, but I’m not sure what he meant. He then proceeded to tell me, in almost reverent tones, that his Brother-in-law is a certified six sigma black belt. I said, “Wow!” (with absolutely no indication of sarcasm :rolleyes: ).

I told him that, as far as “certification” goes, I have a couple of cards that say I am a certified quality engineer and a certified reliability engineer (I don’t live in Canada, so I can get away with calling myself an “engineer”), through the American Society for Quality (ASQ). The sour expression on his face after my comments shocked me into the realization that my measly CQE is to SSBB as “amoeba” is to “PHD”. He was not impressed.

I tried to explain that they (CQE and SSBB) each recognize a similar knowledge base from two different perspectives and when looking at the Bodies of Knowledge for the two, they are mostly similar. He said, “Yeah, I suppose one of the differences is the extensive knowledge of statistics the Black Belts have.” I just sighed.

Anyway, after he left, I decided to print out ASQ’s BOK for both CQE and SSBB, lay ‘em side by side, and review the differences and similarities. This is my conclusion: They are nearly the same! (but formatted differently). The differences are as follows:

What topics CQE has that SSBB does not

I.A) Professional Conduct and ASQ’s Code of Ethics (others can consider the irony or lack thereof of the SSBB’s omission of this)
I.I) Supplier relations and development
II.B-D) Document control systems, international standards, and auditing
III.A) Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T)
III.B) Material control and material review boards
III.D) Non-destructive testing (NDT) - inspection and test is briefly mentioned in SS.
IV.A-F) Reliability and Maintainability (only TPM is covered in SSBB IX.C)

What topics SSBB has that CQE does not

I.A) Six Sigma philosophy and business processes
I.B) Leadership and the explanation of belts (green, black, master, etc.)
III.D Managing change
IX.A-C) More detail on Lean Manufacturing (e.g. SMED, Theory of Constraints, etc.)

Resolving problems is addressed in both, but they use different methodologies (8D type vs. DMAIC)

Even the differences above may be a matter of semantics. In any event, I believe I have passed that imaginary line from being a leading edge quality professional to being a washed up old-timer who actually believes that people tie their shoes still, sharpen their pencils using a hand-cranked sharpener, and use normal probability paper to calculate Cpks. You don’t? Wow! :bonk:

Rob,

I am not surprised about the reaction from the salesman about your lack of Black Belt certification. Not only do many corporations not accept the CQE as proof of competency, they also do not appear to accept the ASQ CSSBB certification.

My knowledge is somewhat anecdotal but in talking to Six Sigma Black Belts, the certification should be obtained through a 4 week (i.e. very expensive) training course conducted internally or through a consultant. The thought process is that the required Six Sigma projects that are required along with the training must be reviewed by the company Master Black Belts or the consultant to verify that they followed the process.

There is also some mysticism about the certification being done in a company that has "executive sponsorship" (i.e. willing to spend a lot of dollars for training and taking workers from their job to work on the projects) if it really is a Six Sigma company.

I never obtained a CQE since I went the CQM route and then got a CSSBB. Now that I know how much the CSSBB is like the CQE I probably could pass the CQE with little additional study.

By the way, you are not washed up until they hang you up to dry and ask you to leave.

Bill

A recent discussion with a newly hired salesman rekindled in me a need to tackle the six sigma vs. traditional quality question, again. He came into my office and asked me if I was “certified”. I said that some people consider me certifiable, but I’m not sure what he meant. He then proceeded to tell me, in almost reverent tones, that his Brother-in-law is a certified six sigma black belt. I said, “Wow!” (with absolutely no indication of sarcasm :rolleyes: ).

I told him that, as far as “certification” goes, I have a couple of cards that say I am a certified quality engineer and a certified reliability engineer (I don’t live in Canada, so I can get away with calling myself an “engineer”), through the American Society for Quality (ASQ). The sour expression on his face after my comments shocked me into the realization that my measly CQE is to SSBB as “amoeba” is to “PHD”. He was not impressed.

I tried to explain that they (CQE and SSBB) each recognize a similar knowledge base from two different perspectives and when looking at the Bodies of Knowledge for the two, they are mostly similar. He said, “Yeah, I suppose one of the differences is the extensive knowledge of statistics the Black Belts have.” I just sighed.

Anyway, after he left, I decided to print out ASQ’s BOK for both CQE and SSBB, lay ‘em side by side, and review the differences and similarities. This is my conclusion: They are nearly the same! (but formatted differently). The differences are as follows:

What topics CQE has that SSBB does not

I.A) Professional Conduct and ASQ’s Code of Ethics (others can consider the irony or lack thereof of the SSBB’s omission of this)
I.I) Supplier relations and development
II.B-D) Document control systems, international standards, and auditing
III.A) Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T)
III.B) Material control and material review boards
III.D) Non-destructive testing (NDT) - inspection and test is briefly mentioned in SS.
IV.A-F) Reliability and Maintainability (only TPM is covered in SSBB IX.C)

What topics SSBB has that CQE does not

I.A) Six Sigma philosophy and business processes
I.B) Leadership and the explanation of belts (green, black, master, etc.)
III.D Managing change
IX.A-C) More detail on Lean Manufacturing (e.g. SMED, Theory of Constraints, etc.)

Resolving problems is addressed in both, but they use different methodologies (8D type vs. DMAIC)

Even the differences above may be a matter of semantics. In any event, I believe I have passed that imaginary line from being a leading edge quality professional to being a washed up old-timer who actually believes that people tie their shoes still, sharpen their pencils using a hand-cranked sharpener, and use normal probability paper to calculate Cpks. You don’t? Wow! :bonk:As bad as the arthritis in my thumbs has been getting, I am considering a changeover to slip-ons and Velcro fasteners for my shoes. Velcro versus buttons may be on the agenda for shirts, soon. I've moved to automatic pencils - they may have changed the paint formula on pencils because they don't taste the same as they did when I was chewing them instead of cigars when I quit smoking.

As far as the difficulty with folks having a distorted understanding of Six S and therefore more "respect" for 6S than other ASQ certifications, I don't think we can overcome that erroneous impression as long as our own ASQ is making money from issuing 6S certifications.

Although I'm a long-time proponent of the disciplines underlying 6S, I still get a case of giggles when I hear folks tout 6S as the "wave of the future" when they have no idea how much of it is grounded in the past (Shewhart, Juran, et al) Is DMAIC really different or better than PDCA?

The two things 6S has which you left out of your list, Rob:

the ear of management
great publicity

Rob,


There is also some mysticism about the certification being done in a company that has "executive sponsorship" (i.e. willing to spend a lot of dollars for training and taking workers from their job to work on the projects) if it really is a Six Sigma company.


Bill:

I think this fact alone is the source of many of the six-sigma "problems". There is an investment decision made by members of management. How often do they like to look like they have made a bad decision? So, they have a big incentive to make it work, with less interest on any ill side effects.

This can be said of other "fads" for lack of a better term, but six sigma seems to have a longer life than many of those, likely because it contains many of the tried and true methods (see above). Still, I think that having the "chosen few" (BBs) must raise some resentment among the troops, but since I have not worked in a six sigma shop, that is just a guess. Do folks run away when a BB comes around?

I'd tell the salesman that "I am certified and I have the medical records to prove it!". It always scares off unproductive people.

Best Wishes,

Tom

Although I'm a long-time proponent of the disciplines underlying 6S, I still get a case of giggles when I hear folks tout 6S as the "wave of the future" when they have no idea how much of it is grounded in the past (Shewhart, Juran, et al) Is DMAIC really different or better than PDCA?



Yippee! I just love a good quote about Six Sigma. I was told to add Six Sigma to the quality improvement class I teach at a local university. I did, but I make darn sure that the students know that SS is a repackaging of the stuff that they learn in the first part of the class.

:topic: I know I'm in trouble with this latest batch of business undergrads. Just got the test scores for the test on probability and basic statistics. I don't think any of these students will pursue CQE or CSSBB........

Well we had grads fail the CQE exam too, some with masters.

:topic: I know I'm in trouble with this latest batch of business undergrads. Just got the test scores for the test on probability and basic statistics. I don't think any of these students will pursue CQE or CSSBB........

I taught one quarter at the MBA level for a Quantitative Methods course that was highly statistical. When they asked me how they would be graded, I responded that with 25 people in the class there would probably be close to a normal distribution so I would have to decide how to spread them over A's and B's (C's are practically considered flunking in MBA and I think you get students to drop rather than giving an F).

My forecast was accurate but unexpected since the grades ranged from a low of 55 to a high of 95 on the first test. I struggled the rest of the semester trying to figure out a way of teaching the subject, simplying the tests, giving extra credit and even offering extra tutoring to prevent a third of the class from getting C or less.

There was a third of the class that was capable of learning enough for CQE or CSSBB so there is hope. You just have to make do with what you have. Good luck.

Bill

My forecast was accurate but unexpected since the grades ranged from a low of 55 to a high of 95 on the first test. I struggled the rest of the semester trying to figure out a way of teaching the subject, simplying the tests, giving extra credit and even offering extra tutoring to prevent a third of the class from getting C or less.

Bill

Take a look at http://www.sythink.com/theory_GA.php?sectionnumber=7

This is how I tackle the problem. Granted, I teach business and MBA students, so I believe in that environment the regrade effort is good. I probably wouldn't do it for engineers.

Also, as a Deming-ite I definitely do not grade on a curve. Using the 50% regrade option would allow the 55 to become a 78, solidly in the "C" range. Giving everyone the 50% option (even the 95 can become a 98) keeps things fair for all.

Steve,

Your method is as you say in your article title "A Compromise on Grades". At the MBA level, the only two acceptable grades are A and B unless you want to fine tune it with + and -. A C is considered almost the equivalent of flunking and MBA students are not allowed to have more than two.

I understand there are ways to compromise on grades and I allowed extra credit, re-taking tests, easier tests etc. My real point is that students and ultimately the professor can end up focusing more on the grade than what they learn.

Given a second opportunity, I would de-emphasize the grade as much as possible and focus on the learning process. There will always be some students who will only focus on the grade.

Bill

Steve,

Your method is as you say in your article title "A Compromise on Grades". At the MBA level, the only two acceptable grades are A and B unless you want to fine tune it with + and -. A C is considered almost the equivalent of flunking and MBA students are not allowed to have more than two.

I understand there are ways to compromise on grades and I allowed extra credit, re-taking tests, easier tests etc. My real point is that students and ultimately the professor can end up focusing more on the grade than what they learn.

Given a second opportunity, I would de-emphasize the grade as much as possible and focus on the learning process. There will always be some students who will only focus on the grade.

Bill

I've not had so much for problems at the MBA level. City U does not have the MBA's do weekly homework, and most all courses include a paper. Although I do teach the Quantitative Methods course, what I look for more at the MBA level is the understanding of what to do with the results. So, I will give them the printout for a completed Linear Program problem, and ask them to explain what a certain value means from the printout. Yes, I've given out a B minus or two to the MBA's, but that was very rare.

Unfortunately, City U does cause me to focus on a grade - if I don't turn in my final grades, I don't get paid (and presumably, not hired again).

Within the company I work for, I manage continuous improvement efforts at all our locations. Usually, the first time I go to a plant, someone will say to my "Oh yeah That six sigma stuff." I then have to explain that we prefer not to call it that. We even changed our group name from Continuous "Process" Improvement to Continuous "Profit" Improvement hoping that would energize the management into working with all the tools available to simply solve problems and improve profitability.......anywhere and any department in the plant.

Recently, I received an e-mail from a person in our automotive group asking me how I was doing in our efforts. The real reason he e-mailed me was so he could say he was now involved in Shainin Red X training, so which is so far beyond six sigma that all we would see are there tail lights. (Don't call what we do six sigma!) Soon they would begin to implement this type of effort in the automotive group. He said he would love to tell me about it, but they had to sign an agreement that said if they talked about it they would be vapoized.

My god.......I have a tool box and I solve problems. It is that simple.

My god.......I have a tool box and I solve problems. It is that simple.
Good for you:applause: . My experience with Shainin devotees has been that they are far more dogmatic and myopic than even the most rabid Deming acolytes. Hopping on one particular bandwagon (read: one guru's ego) is almost never productive. The key, as you suggest, is to be aware of the best thinking available, and to be able to use it to your own best advantage.

Yep! "Secret techniques" as a philosophy is sure antithetical to the concept of "System of Profound Knowledge" promulgated by Deming.

I just can't imagine the mentality of someone who would willingly PAY MONEY to become part of such a "secret" system.

Next thing we know, these guys who want to keep their techniques secret will want to keep their identities secret and there will be a "small" run on white sheets and hoods. They will probably sew a logo on the costume - Something like
SSS
(Shainin Secret Society)

(no winks or smileys here - this is serious business!)

psssst. Hey, I have one of their secret decoder rings. I would not sell it to just anyone, but I'll give it to you for $1000. How about it?

Next thing we know, these guys who want to keep their techniques secret will want to keep their identities secret and there will be a "small" run on white sheets and hoods. They will probably sew a logo on the costume - Something like
SSS
(Shainin Secret Society)

(no winks or smileys here - this is serious business!)Serious business, indeed. I'm grateful for the reinforcement, and further proof that the my-guru-can-lick-your-guru arguments offer nothing that's likely to result in anything being improved. Use of needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and comparing Shaininites to the KKK proves the point far more eloquently than I could hope to. Good job.

Serious business, indeed. I'm grateful for the reinforcement, and further proof that the my-guru-can-lick-your-guru arguments offer nothing that's likely to result in anything being improved. Use of needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and comparing Shaininites to the KKK proves the point far more eloquently than I could hope to. Good job.
The comparison to another "failed" secret society is yours, not mine.

Guilty as charged to "inflammatory rhetoric" as far as the ridicule of the secret aspect of Shainin, not to the techniques I'm currently aware of. The simple fact is the secrecy prevents adequate sunshine on Shainin to make a meaningful comparison to any other set of tools.

I recall seeing newsreel films of KKK rallies right after WWII. These guys wore hoods to hide their identity, but rode around in vehicles with license plate numbers which could be traced back to them. FBI agents were in evidence copying down license plate numbers outside all their Klavern meetings. Seems ripe for ridicule about secrecy to me.

The comparison to another "failed" secret society is yours, not mine.
There you go with your scare quotes again. The (odious) comparison was yours.

psssst. Hey, I have one of their secret decoder rings. I would not sell it to just anyone, but I'll give it to you for $1000. How about it?

I'll sell mine for $950 and even pay for shipping myself........ :horse:

Any lower and I'd probably not be able to afford the costs for a lawyer. :D

Wayne

You can get a good idea of Shainin Techiques from "Statistical Engineering: An Algorithm for Reducing Variation in Manufacturing Processes", available from ASQ Press.

This does not use the official Shainin Red X and Green Y terminology, but the basic methodology is the same. The emphasis is on finding a dominant cause through the process of elimination, and using graphical techniques for analysis. DOEs are only recommended to verify the dominant cause after you have isolated it as a strong suspect, and the DOEs are usually small, full-factorials.

You guys are ALL WRONG.

It is all part of an ancient grand secret society.

Didn't anybody read "The Davinci Code"?

Yeah, Leonardo's last supper clearly shows the figures tilted toward each other forming an "M". Clearly, this represents MOTOROLA!

In fact, the painting is not of the disciples at all! It is a representation of the first blackbelts celebrating the successful completion of their CSSBB exam! That's why everyone gets confused about whether the feminine figure is John or Mary. There was one female blackbelt originally to comply with the Human Resources rules on workplace diversification.

It's obvious, the holy grail wasn't a cup, or a bloodline, it was a toolbox full of Quality stuff!!

Geeez, do I have to spell it out for ya?

Ya see, the Knights Templar unearthed a "Statapult" on the grounds where King Solomons temple once stood, then they whisked it away under cover of darkness and began performing ritual SPC calculations.

We've been persecuted ever since.

Ya know that all seeing eye above the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill?

It stands for "I Six Sigma" !!

I've said too much already.

Carl-

Carl, ha ha ha :lol: I just about bust my gut. That is just too good!

And I suppose the pyramid shape itself is just a hieroglyph of the normal distribution, after digging up what looks to be a primitive quincunx in the ruins of ancient Nineva? :biglaugh:

I moved a couple of posts about reliability to this locations
Reliability Questions - System vs Component Reliability - Target Values (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14551)

(This is my first attempt at moving threads so I hope it works OK)

Tim F

You realize, Carl, the penalty for that disclosure: Beginning with "body severed in twain . . ."

GM Hiram didn't snitch us out, but you did. Shame, shame, shame (or is that a song*?:rolleyes: )

*http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/matchbox20/shame.html

Great lampoon, Carl!:lol: I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier!

Wes,

I'll square up with you later, I'm too plumb tired to level with you in the PM.

Carl-

Ok guys, nothing has worked in the past because we weren't using the correct name!

The only advantage is jumping on something that management wants to do and will support. If management truly supported quality, as they ALL say they do, significant breakthroughs would have been happening just as they are now with Six Sigma a long time ago at some of these companies with unenlightened management.

I remember when everyone was getting significant improvement with TQM, not so much because the process of applying data analysis and teams to fixing (or avoiding) problems is different, but mostly because executive management wanted to be supporting the "cutting edge" quality approach.

At the end of the day, if management doesn't support it, it will not work, not six sigma, or any other type of organizational change. :bonk: When Six Sigma comes out and states - "management support is provided through Six Sigma" it makes me want to dig out the archives from 15-20 years ago when they were saying the same thing about another new "re-packaged" program.

There will be more of these fantastic breakthroughs. Without them, consultants have nothing to sell. It is sad that the ASQ, staffed by ex-consultants, cannot see the disservice they are doing to some of us who have paid dues for the last twenty years.

I am a senior member in the ASQ and have been in the quality business for 30 years, but they don't think my CQE, CQA and many years of doing this all over the world is worth anything anymore? Fine, I want my money back.

In today's world, not "hearing" the voice of the customer is a choice. ASQ needs to have the members vote on this. Set up a third party to handle an internet survey and vote. That would end the debate. For a group that is supposed to be supporting the use of quality improvement techniques in pursuit of customer satisfaction, they are a little disappointing.

So, how do we get heard? Any suggestions?

Ok guys, nothing has worked in the past because we weren't using the correct name!

The only advantage is jumping on something that management wants to do and will support. If management truly supported quality, as they ALL say they do, significant breakthroughs would have been happening just as they are now with Six Sigma a long time ago at some of these companies with unenlightened management.

I remember when everyone was getting significant improvement with TQM, not so much because the process of applying data analysis and teams to fixing (or avoiding) problems is different, but mostly because executive management wanted to be supporting the "cutting edge" quality approach.

At the end of the day, if management doesn't support it, it will not work, not six sigma, or any other type of organizational change. :bonk: When Six Sigma comes out and states - "management support is provided through Six Sigma" it makes me want to dig out the archives from 15-20 years ago when they were saying the same thing about another new "re-packaged" program.

There will be more of these fantastic breakthroughs. Without them, consultants have nothing to sell. It is sad that the ASQ, staffed by ex-consultants, cannot see the disservice they are doing to some of us who have paid dues for the last twenty years.

I am a senior member in the ASQ and have been in the quality business for 30 years, but they don't think my CQE, CQA and many years of doing this all over the world is worth anything anymore? Fine, I want my money back.

In today's world, not "hearing" the voice of the customer is a choice. ASQ needs to have the members vote on this. Set up a third party to handle an internet survey and vote. That would end the debate. For a group that is supposed to be supporting the use of quality improvement techniques in pursuit of customer satisfaction, they are a little disappointing.

So, how do we get heard? Any suggestions?FWIW:
When folks have complaints about the service they receive from an organization, it often pays to go to the top official in the organization to lodge the complaint directly. Thus said, I'd like to suggest that ALL members of ASQ (if you are not a member, you have nothing coming!) who have specific complaints about "trends and processes" within ASQ as well as proposed solutions (what good is a complaint if you don't offer a solution you'd be satisfied with?) take them up directly with the current top dog (the emphasis on his VOLUNTEER title - no pay, little glory - in heavy blue is mine, not his):

Jerry Mairani
Company Name:
Title: Dir. of Corporate Quality
mairanij@beutler.com
Sections:
Sacramento Section
Divisions:
Audit Division
Automotive Division
Aviation, Space & Defense
Biomedical Division
Chemical Process Industries Division
Customer Supplier Division
Design & Construction Division
Education Division
Electronics & Communication Division
Energy & Environmental Division
Food Drug & Cosmetic Division
Government Division
Health Care Division
Human Development & Leadership Division
Inspection Division
Lean Enterprise
Measurement Quality Division
Product Safety and Prevention Liability Interest Group
Quality Management Division
Reliability Division
Service Quality Division
Six Sigma Forum
Software Division
Statistics Division
Teamwork & Participation
Interests:
Six Sigma Beginner
Six Sigma Black Belt
Six Sigma Master Black Belt
Six Sigma Green Belt
Six Sigma Champion
Six Sigma Executive
Auditing
Baldrige Criteria
Basic Quality
Career Development
Certification
Change Management
Continuous Improvement
Cost of Quality
Customer Relationship Management
Engineering
Environmental/Sustainability
Global Quality
Laboratory
Leadership
Lean
Process Management
Quality Assurance
Quality Management
Small Business
Standards
Statistics
Teams
Benchmarking
Compliance/Regulatory
Customer Satisfaction Measurement
Customer Service Function
Human Resources
Inspection
ISO 9000- Quality Systems Series
ISO 14000
Maintainability
Measurement/Metrology and Testing
Process Capability
Product Development
Product Safety and Reliability
Project Management
QS 9000
Quality Audits
Software Quality
Statistical Methods
Statistical Process Control (SPC)
Supplier Relations
Award Assessment
Education and Quality
Organizational Development
Six Sigma
TL 9000
Comments:
I have been ia quality professional for over 22 years. Retired for Pacific Bell as the state wide service quality manager working for the EVP, have a quality consulting and training firm called UpwardPerformance that trained over 200 people in Six Sigma in 2004, and I am the Corporate Quality Director for Beutler Corp., the largest heating, air conditioning, vent, and manufacturer in the U.S.
I am the 2005 - 2006 President for ASQ.

Be sure to give your real name and member number when you write or (in my opinion) Jerry is fully justified in merely deleting your email or snail mail (sent c/o ASQ HQ) without answer or further consideration. You have to be willing to stand up and be counted. An anonymous complaint is the same as "spam."

As for me.... Im working as Continuous Improvement Engineer and BB Certification And Lean Expert Certification ( Internal Certification).... Quality tools used in a correct and proper way to address problem would result great gain... with the right support though.....

Six Sigma ONLY can be worked when TOP MANAGEMENT support!

i'm a certified Quality Engineerr from ASQ with Masters degree in statistics.
I don't know wether i can do a six sigma job or not.

i'm a certified Quality Engineerr from ASQ with Masters degree in statistics.
I don't know wether i can do a six sigma job or not.
Maybe somebody in the Cove must have already stumbled upon this article:
I qoute:
"... There is no attempt to teach a BB various
quality theories, use of quality standards such as
ISO-9000 or the Baldrige criteria, quality auditing,
and so on. The BB curriculum is clearly focused on
developing the ability to achieve tangible results in
Six Sigma improvement projects.
BBs are specifically selected, trained, and evaluated
on the basis of their ability to achieve results.
As noted in Munro (2000), ability to achieve results
is not a criterion for CQE certification. This
point is not “hair-splitting;” any professional statistician
knows a lot more about the tools than a typical
BB, but not all professional statisticians would..." (End of Qoute)

The article is by Roger Hoerl found in ASQ site: http://www.asq.org/pub/jqt/past/vol33_issue4/qtec-391.pdf
Since im niether a CQE nor a Six-sigma belter, im in no position to give comment. But i think the article is very informative.

This is the crux of the issue at hand between BB and CQEs. Do CQEs have the tools to be BB? Of course they do. But the criteria to be a BB is not about the tools, but rather about "proving" you can deliver results. Basically, CQE have been shut out of the BB game because their certification is not based on "proving" results. Instead of taking CQEs and giving them the additional training, many organization chose to take people without any knowledge of the tools and train them to deliver results.

After fighting this fight for the last few years, I came to grips with the fact that I am a statistician and CQE, if companies want to put together the tools and believe it will deliver results that is fine. If they rather see a BB certification, then I will pass on that work.

To answer your question, if offered a BB position with "only" a CQE and a master degree in statistics (similar to myself), you are more than qualified for the job.


Maybe somebody in the Cove must have already stumbled upon this article:
I qoute:
"... There is no attempt to teach a BB various
quality theories, use of quality standards such as
ISO-9000 or the Baldrige criteria, quality auditing,
and so on. The BB curriculum is clearly focused on
developing the ability to achieve tangible results in
Six Sigma improvement projects.
BBs are specifically selected, trained, and evaluated
on the basis of their ability to achieve results.
As noted in Munro (2000), ability to achieve results
is not a criterion for CQE certification. This
point is not “hair-splitting;” any professional statistician
knows a lot more about the tools than a typical
BB, but not all professional statisticians would..." (End of Qoute)

The article is by Roger Hoerl found in ASQ site: http://www.asq.org/pub/jqt/past/vol33_issue4/qtec-391.pdf
Since im niether a CQE nor a Six-sigma belter, im in no position to give comment. But i think the article is very informative.

It's done put a fork in it. We have just disbanded our Six Sigma training and project methodology. Basically it took too much time and resources from people that were already hired to do a particular job at 40-50hrs/wk. Six Sigma added another 10-20 essentially burning out our engineers. Anyone else run into this resource problem?

It's done put a fork in it. We have just disbanded our Six Sigma training and project methodology. Basically it took too much time and resources from people that were already hired to do a particular job at 40-50hrs/wk. Six Sigma added another 10-20 essentially burning out our engineers. Anyone else run into this resource problem?Boy, Oh Boy! Without an intimate knowledge of the specifics of your organization's attempt at implementation, my first blush response is that the plan for integrating 6S into your company suffered from inflated expectations and [probably] a lot of redundant content in the training material if the engineers were, indeed already imbued with a "quality background."

Forcing intelligent folks to follow a curriculum filled with content they already know creates a psychological barrier which may be subtle or overt, but the result is a form of work slowdown sometimes called "work to the book."

Essentially, "work to the book" comes from one of two sources:

A micromanager boss with no respect for the intelligence of his workers who forces everyone to follow overly detailed work instructions with no effort to periodically evaluate the instructions to see if they can be simplified or mistake proofed.
A workforce which conspires to follow every instruction to the letter and stopping work until a boss can make a minor decision which the workforce could [and should] have been empowered to make on its own.This scenario may not directly apply to your organization, but the bottom line is the "powers that be" did not adequately evaluate the "gap" between the original status of the organization and the desired status after implementation and provide leadership, training with qualified instructors, money, and manpower resources to fill that gap.

This situation is not unique to 6S implementation, but applies equally to ISO or TS implementation, mergers, acquisitions, entering into new markets, etc.

Think of the "gap analysis" as a form of FMEA (Failure Mode & Evaluation Analysis) where time and effort spent identifying "what ifs" and assigning risk levels of occurrence and "fatality level" of such occurrence ultimately saves time, money, and effort in the long run and assures a higher probability of success unmarred by surprise failures.

There are no new tools introduced through Six Sigma. The tools used in Six Sigma are the same proven tools used by Quality Professionals for decades.

In general, any experienced Quality Professional can perform the function of a Six Sigma Black Belt, but the reverse is not true. I say “in general” because leadership is a critical role for the Black Belt, and just as there are unsuccessful Black Belts who lack the necessary leadership, there are Quality Professionals who also lack the leadership necessary. As someone said earlier in this thread “There are some who could not lead a team to the restroom, no less through a complicated improvement project.”

Good, experienced Quality Professionals, with minimal training on the DMAIC process, can do the job of a Black Belt as well or better than a Black Belt given all other characteristics equal.

Good Black Belts and Quality Professionals know how and when to apply DMAIC judiciously. The full DMAIC process is not intended to be applied to all projects indiscriminately. Rather the full DMAIC is intended to be applied to large, complex problems. You don’t need the full DMAIC to reduce the special cause variation in a manufacturing process when during the initial investigation an operator putting a part in wrong is clearly the problem and error proofing will fix the problem.

I would never think of starting a project of any complexity without a partner from quality. A good, experienced Quality Professional helps keep me in check if I start marching down a path that will not meet quality requirements or I want “more data”. On the reverse, I help keep the Quality Professional in check if the Quality Professional is sure of the answer to the problem but I feel we have not yet reached the root cause.

The bottom line is without a partnership of Black Belt and Quality Professional, the success of the project will suffer. This is true even if the Black Belt is also a Quality Professional.

In my opinion, the only reason a Quality Professional should ever think he/she can not do the job of a Black Belt is an undeniable lack of the leadership necessary to do the job. Persons who are thinking of pursuing a Black Belt certification should consider the same.

To get to the short answer for the subject questions.

• Six Sigma uses proven quality tools, therefore the tools must be valid.
• Six Sigma is valid, but needs a marriage with Quality Professionals for maximizing success.
• Six Sigma adds value through the application of the DMAIC process. This process helps to make the improvement team successful when applied judiciously.
• Can a CQE do the same job? All other characteristics being equal, absolutely.

Best regards,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

A CQE can do this, but he is not professionl,
Six sigma emphasizes more fluent procedure and process.

A CQE can do this, but he is not professionl,
Six sigma emphasizes more fluent procedure and process.

You really did not mean to say that CQEs are not professionals. Did you?

You really did not mean to say that CQEs are not professionals. Did you?

Ditto...............
I have been a CQE for many, many years. I thought it represented some level of professionalism, apparently so did ASQ.

A CQE can do this, but he is not professionl,
Six sigma emphasizes more fluent procedure and process.

Jeez...I must be a real Bozo. :bonk: I'm not even a CQE! Wonder how I ever made it in this job...

I'm sure the professional organizations who profit from professional certifications will disagree, but...

In my experience in the Q world, an individual’s professional certification – SSBB, CQE, etc. -- is about as reliable an indicator of the ability of that person to do a good job as a certification like ISO 9001, AS9100, etc. is that a company will do a good job. A very weak positive correlation at best.

Wow whats going on around here, why is everybody jumping down each others necks about certification. Certification does not really prove any thing critical but it acknowledges the fact that you are competant within your job and it ensures that we as quality practioners will conduct ourselves in a profesional manner making us professionals. As for the people who claim to be staticians, You miss the whole concept of Six Sigma. When Taguchi arrived on the scene, the staticians rejected his thinking and teachings but industry accepted his teachings and six six sigma now thrives on some of his teachings. Taguchi brought across Statistical thinking and thats how six sigma is coming acroos now, its not business thinking any more, you dont need to be a statician to evolve within statistical thinking.

A BB might be new in the game all fair and well but they are employed specifically to concerntrate on improvements, you should then actually call them process analysts or improvement engineers. I can go on and on with various names. A CQE can do the same job as a BB I don't disagree with the proper training they can but sometimes that becomes complicated as you will only look at it in a quality perspective but I firmly stand by what I say now, A BB should be Quality and Technically minded to maximise improvements within the company if he is not then a CQE could do the same job.


:bonk:Hope this Helps

:blowup:QUALITY IS A WAY OF LIFE:blowup:

You miss the whole concept of Six Sigma. When Taguchi arrived on the scene, the staticians rejected his thinking and teachings but industry accepted his teachings and six six sigma now thrives on some of his teachings. :
Six Sigma is quite contradictory to the Taguchi Loss Function. Six Sigma's fundamental concept is specification based (counting defects). Taguchi's Loss Function gives "on target with minimum variance".

...A BB should be Quality and Technically minded to maximise improvements within the company if he is not then a CQE could do the same job.

Not sure what you're saying here. It seems that you're saying that CQEs are not "Quality and Technically minded to maximise improvements," but that BBs are. It's sort of like saying that only people who wear blue hats are "Quality and Technically minded." In fact, the color of one's hat has the same influence as the type of certification held. The fact is that if the top management of any company considers maximizing improvements to be the top priority, the entire concept of certification, whether it be BB or CQE, would be superfluous. Experienced people who have permission to make improvements will make improvements, if that's what the company culture demands.

Interesting how this thread still has "legs".

I suppose it really is coming down to - is a BB (the person) superior to a CQE (the person) or vice versa. I'd say that comes down to the context of - is the company in question doing six sigma, or doing a different quality program (such as Deming). AND that infers the real question is - is Six Sigma superior to all other quality programs?

Personally, I'm pretty comfortable that the tools (and more important - the theory) I offer folks (my employer, other folks I consult to) are superior to Six Sigma.

Interesting how this thread still has "legs".

I suppose it really is coming down to - is a BB (the person) superior to a CQE (the person) or vice versa. I'd say that comes down to the context of - is the company in question doing six sigma, or doing a different quality program (such as Deming). AND that infers the real question is - is Six Sigma superior to all other quality programs?

Personally, I'm pretty comfortable that the tools (and more important - the theory) I offer folks (my employer, other folks I consult to) are superior to Six Sigma.
Steve,

Now we are in disagreement.

I have serious reservations about is the BB superior to the CQE or vice versa.

I am even more concerned about is Six Sigma superior to all quality programs.

The answer to the first question is OF COURSE NOT.

The answer to the second question is ARE YOU SERIOUS!

Six Sigma professionals, Quality professionals, organization Management, and the work force should all be working together, as a team, to develop and implement improvements in Quality and Cost. When this is not the case, no program is going to work.

Six Sigma is a supplement to all other quality programs, not a competitor. Six Sigma provides a structured approach to problem solving and improvement implementation. Six Sigma is not a replacement for any other quality program, nor should it be.

Six Sigma professionals are NOT QUALITY EXPERTS, but with the proper training they can be. Conversely, Quality Professionals are NOT SIX SIGMA PROFESSIONALS, but with the proper training they can be.

It is the attitude that it is EITHER Six Sigma OR another quality program but NOT both that has driven the wedge between Six Sigma professionals and Quality experts resulting in neither program being as effective as a team effort would be.

If we do not start operating as a team, we are going to fail.

I wonder what causes the “flavor of the month” and the need to “try something else”. Could it be the attitude that what we have is already operating well and I am not going to support this “new” program and the resulting lack of teamwork and cooperation?

I have seen what you do out there Steve and whether you want to admit it or not, it is a mixture of Quality and Six Sigma. So you keep doing what you are doing while complaining about Six Sigma and how inferior Six Sigma is to your program. We both know that is not true.

Sincere regards,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

Yes, a very emotional topic.

I'm not complaining against six sigma - the first paragraph of my post does acknowledge that this thread wouldn't exist, and have so many responses if there wasn't a perceived competition between methods.

My second paragraph just acknowledges that I have made my choices, just as each of us have made choices. I am quite confident that a practicing Black Belt has made a decision to practice what they practice based upon strong personal beliefs. None of us would choose to practice what we choose to practice if we felt it was inferior. I'm just saying I'm comfortable with my choices, and no, don't perceive a need to bash alternatives to what I've chosen to practice.

Steve,

That "choice" is exactly my issue.

Rather than making a "choice", wouldn't we get more done faster and better if we formed a partnership rather than making "choices"

Best regards,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

Steve,

That "choice" is exactly my issue.

Rather than making a "choice", wouldn't we get more done faster and better if we formed a partnership rather than making "choices"

Best regards,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

In truth, the controversy only exists only in discussions like this, and not on the front lines. Some companies have made a decision to adopt SS, and if you expect to get ahead in those companies, you'll put on the uniform. That has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of SS, or any other "strategy," however. Like I said earlier, if the folks at the top are serious about improvement and understand how to go about it, titles, caps and belts and certificates are just window dressing.

I have been following this thread for a while. I thought about it, and decided to pull out my trusty Dr. W. Edwards Deming's "Out of the Crisis" again.
Sometimes you get so inundated with (emotionally driven) ideas and opinions, that you can't see the (quality) forest from the trees anymore. Do you agree that it all starts with:
1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

I believe this is still true today as it was in 1982 when Dr. Deming wrote his masterpiece: "Out of the Crisis."

Stijloor.

I have been following this thread for a while. I thought about it, and decided to pull out my trusty Dr. W. Edwards Deming's "Out of the Crisis" again.
Sometimes you get so inundated with (emotionally driven) ideas and opinions, that you can't see the (quality) forest from the trees anymore. Do you agree that it all starts with:
1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

I believe this is still true today as it was in 1982 when Dr. Deming wrote his masterpiece: "Out of the Crisis."

Stijloor.

The phrase "create constancy of purpose" is the best definition of the responsibility of leadership ever written, and probably the most ignored.

There are always going to be choices, alternative methodologies. Dr. Wheeler says 8 point in a row below average is a trend on a control chart, Dr. Duncan says 7. We don't get too wrapped up in which is "right" and which is "wrong" but we understand that a choice must be made.

My thoughts on the issue are that there are many CQEs who are jealous of SSBBs because many SSBBs are making 6 figure incomes (I am making this statement based on the many SSBB positions I have seen posted with a high starting salary). The reason I see for the pay inequality is that the SSBB has been getting better PR. The pay inequality also applied to any job in private industry. You are paid whatever you can convince the company to pay you.

Both CQEs and SSBBs are Quality professionals. They must be since ASQ certifies both titles. The main difference between the two seems to be that the SSBB focuses more on statistics and cost reductions.

I have my CQE and am studying the SSBB material. I have not taken any SSBB training because my company does not support the 6 sigma program and I do not wish to pay for the training if I am to receive nothing in return. It is my responsibility as a Quality professional to know this material whether or not I have the certification.

There are always going to be choices, alternative methodologies. Dr. Wheeler says 8 point in a row below average is a trend on a control chart, Dr. Duncan says 7. We don't get too wrapped up in which is "right" and which is "wrong" but we understand that a choice must be made.

Both are "trends," but whether either is significant is another matter. It's all a matter of probability, and the fact that highly improbable things do happen.

I do not know how the question of choice got down to the choice between 7 and 8 when the original choice was one system or the other or a partnership, nevertheless, the choice between how many points is based on the risk of calling a process out of control when it is not.

If I have a process operating exactly on target, and all variation is common cause variation and normally distributed, the probability of a number of points being on one side of the mean is:

Pts Prob
4 0.0625
5 0.03125
6 0.015625
7 0.0078125
8 0.00390625
9 0.001953125


Simply a matter of risk.

Best regards,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

I do not know how the question of choice got down to the choice between 7 and 8 when the original choice was one system or the other or a partnership, nevertheless, the choice between how many points is based on the risk of calling a process out of control when it is not.

I figured that the 7 versus 8 discussion would have less emotion. There are pluses and minuses to using either number, and anyone utilizing SPC needs to make the decision. It may be more related to how one first learned to do SPC that may be the basis for the decision (I learned Duncan prior to Wheeler).

Now, I suppose that is an artificial example since you can't use 7 and 8 simultaneously.

The original title of this thread includes the phrase "Can a CQE do the same". I suspect that things would be a lot less acrimonious today if ASQ had decided to add the Six Sigma body of knowledge to the CQE body of knowledge (certainly there are overlaps). Yes, the CQE exam covers many quality theories, including Juran and Deming, why could it have not included six sigma? But, we are where we are. And there are differences between Juran, Deming, Six Sigma, Lean, Reengineering, you name the guru or buzzword. But, the CQE and CQM exams could have been inclusive. Even now, ASQ is struggling with should there be a separate "Lean" certification!

Steve,

I do not think the discussion today has been acrimonious, just a discussion between professionals.

If I have come across as acrimonious, it was unintended and I apologize to you and the other Covers as well.

Best regards,

Jim Shelor

No, no I don't think anyone here has been inappropriate. - I think this has been a thought provoking discussion over the years, and a little bit of a break from crunching charts now that it is the first working day of the month. Let's see - between my summer intern and myself, 275 charts and files have been completed and delivered in the past 5 hours.

So onwards we go.

"If I were King . . . ."

I'd scrap ALL the current alphabet soup of certifications and start over.

First of all, there certainly is NOT a majority of America Society for Quality Members who can recite the litany of abbreviations for all the certs currently offered by ASQ along with the exact cert title they refer to without a "cheat sheet." (Note I have a number of colleagues in my local ASQ sections who hold ALL the certs currently offered!)

Heck! Many regular members would be hard pressed to give the exact title even with the cheat sheet of the initials.

That's just the ASQ members. Now take the cheat sheet of initials to the average CEO of any size company and ask him to identify the cert each set of initials represents. Given the poor result of that informal survey, is it any wonder there is such a wide disparity in the way organizations valu a certiicate holder?

When we talk about pay scales, the reality is few organizations pay for the cert - they pay for the guy holding "any" cert [or none] based on the value he delivers to the organization. Same thing goes for college degrees and the institutions which grant them. I grant that many organizations won't even give a nod to a job candidate without the piece of paper, but then the guys who get past the first level of gatekeepers are still forced to prove themselves capable of getting the job done to get hired.

The argument the BB gets more pay than CQE may have anecdotal evidence backing it, but that leaves out the unknown character of each candidate. Organizations which set the gatekeeper barrier at BB are the same as those who set the barrier at MBA or MS - it's just an arbitrary barrier which says nothing about the value of the certificate except as a screening device to limit the number of candidates. A clever candidate who can work his way past the gatekeeper may overcome such artificial barriers, especially if he catches the eye and ear of a hiring officer BEFORE the artificial barrier is put in place by selling the VALUE he can bring to the organization - VALUE which has nothing to do with the piece of paper, but everything to do with the BOK (body of knowledge) that piece of paper supposedly represents. It is up to the candidate to SELL that value by giving concrete examples how the candidate successfully used parts of that BOK and can be expected to use them successfully for the target organization.

The other side of the coin is the candidate limits his opportunities when faced with organizations setting the gatekeeper barrier BEFORE the candidate offers his candidacy. Same thing happens with organizations which set the barrier to include bachelors or higher degrees when the candidate doesn't have one.

Is the barrier a fair one [to candidate OR organization?] NO! But, just like poker, you have to play the cards you are dealt.

I don't know if anyone noticed but ASQ decided not to add a Lean Manufacturing certification. Here is the message left on the ASQ Discussion Board"

The Lean Certification that the division has been working on is now on hold. The ASQ Certification Board had sent out a market analysis survey some months ago and informed us that the results of the survey did not support a certification for Lean.

Regards,
Wayne Paupst
Lean Enterprise Division Chair Elect

Apparently that decision ended up in some criticism of the process for creating certifications which shows that there are always some followers of any movement. My standard personal quote attached to all my postings rings true.

Bill Pflanz

...
Six Sigma professionals are NOT QUALITY EXPERTS ..

I certainly agree ... but what are they supposed to contribute above what a quality expert well trained in the teachings and problem solving approaches of Deming can contribute ?

I certainly agree ... but what are they supposed to contribute above what a quality expert well trained in the teachings and problem solving approaches of Deming can contribute ?
Artichoke,

For your continued enjoyment, here is the section of the post you quoted with a phrase completely out of context.

"Six Sigma is a supplement to all other quality programs, not a competitor. Six Sigma provides a structured approach to problem solving and improvement implementation. Six Sigma is not a replacement for any other quality program, nor should it be.

Six Sigma professionals are NOT QUALITY EXPERTS, but with the proper training they can be. Conversely, Quality Professionals are NOT SIX SIGMA PROFESSIONALS, but with the proper training they can be.

It is the attitude that it is EITHER Six Sigma OR another quality program but NOT both that has driven the wedge between Six Sigma professionals and Quality experts resulting in neither program being as effective as a team effort would be.

If we do not start operating as a team, we are going to fail."

Have a nice day,

Jim Shelor
PMP, CSSBB

Ok, I'm new to this board, but I can't help but throw in my 2 cents worth. Some background first. I have been in the Quality business since 1969, and a member of ASQ for many years (I'm now a Senior Member, and I have held many section leadership positions). When ASQ was first debating SSBB certification, I was against it. I was a quality manager at the the time, and my position was "I have QE's working for me. If they don't complete improvement projects that have a positive impact on the bottom line, I will fire them." I felt, and still feel that the SSBB BOK was except for Six Sigma terminology, a subset of the CQE BOK. I have heard Sally Harthun, the Manager of Certification for ASQ say that thought was given to making the the BB certification an add-on to the CQE. The reason given for not doing so was that it was felt that much of the CQE BOK would be useless to the service industry/transactional BB. To prove a point, I took two projects I had lead, re-wrote the steps taken using DMAIC and SS terminology, got the Operations VP to sign as the "champion" (which he in fact if not name had been), and took the CSSBB exam. I took no addition training, and used only Juran's Quality Handbook, and a Six Sigma Glossary as reference materials. I passed, and my ASQ CSSBB cert# is 213, making me a fairly early BB. I believe that Six Sigma is a useful addtion to the quality toolbox, and its main usefulness, and one of the reasons that it seems to have more "legs" than many other so-called flavors of the month is the improved definition of roles. Project Champion, BB MBB, GBB, team members, SMEs, etc all have defined roles and training. This is a great improvement over having everything left to the Quality "guru"

Geoff Withnell
BearingPoint, Inc Six Sigma Master Black Belt

... I believe that Six Sigma is a useful addtion to the quality toolbox, and its main usefulness, and one of the reasons that it seems to have more "legs" than many other so-called flavors of the month is the improved definition of roles.

Perhaps you could point out what "legs" six sigma is supposed to have compared to the teachings of Deming ? Mikel Harry's nonsensical 3.4 dpmo perhaps ? ... or Bill Smith's belief that widening specification limits is as important as reducing variation in improving quality ? ... or SS's use of enumerative tools in analytical studies ? Six sigma is legless but it is certainly not 'armless.

Perhaps you could point out what "legs" six sigma is supposed to have compared to the teachings of Deming ? Mikel Harry's nonsensical 3.4 dpmo perhaps ? ... or Bill Smith's belief that widening specification limits is as important as reducing variation in improving quality ? ... or SS's use of enumerative tools in analytical studies ? Six sigma is legless but it is certainly not 'armless.
Six Sigma does nothing contrary to the teachings of Dr. Deming.

Jim Shelor

Geoff, so good to see you here! It's so good to have you. Please, do continue to post and bring your experience to the Cove!!

Perhaps you could point out what "legs" six sigma is supposed to have compared to the teachings of Deming ? Mikel Harry's nonsensical 3.4 dpmo perhaps ? ... or Bill Smith's belief that widening specification limits is as important as reducing variation in improving quality ? ... or SS's use of enumerative tools in analytical studies ? Six sigma is legless but it is certainly not 'armless.


I was referring to staying power. I think it is obvious that SS will be around a while, and has already out lasted such gems as "Quality Circles". I don't like the 1.5 sigma shift and 4.5 sigma being labeled 6 sigma myself. Six Sigma, like any system or process, can be improved. As for widening spec limits, I agree with Crosby in "conformance to the requirement or changing the requirement to what we and our customers really need". As a QE, I have spent too much time chasing violations of specs that did not mean beans to the design or function of the product. It is wasteful of resources, and tends to degrade respect for tolerances in general. As important as reducing variation? That's a little bit of hyperbole, but it is important.
As both a CQE and CSSBB, I think I am qualified to say that Six Sigma is not the magic bullet for all quality issues, but it is a useful assemblage of tools for both solving quality and productivity issues, and selling quality to management.

Geoff Withnell

As a QE, I have spent too much time chasing violations of specs that did not mean beans to the design or function of the product. It is wasteful of resources, and tends to degrade respect for tolerances in general. As important as reducing variation? That's a little bit of hyperbole, but it is important.

This is a good point, but has nothing to do with SS, per se. As long ago as the mid-1980s I recognized that many "defects" have their origins in the specifications and not in the fitness for use of the parts. Juran defined "quality" as "fitness for use" long before I embraced the concept, and long before SS was an evil twinkle in Motorola's eye.
As both a CQE and CSSBB, I think I am qualified to say that Six Sigma is not the magic bullet for all quality issues, but it is a useful assemblage of tools for both solving quality and productivity issues, and selling quality to management.

I'm not a BB or a CQE, and I think I'm qualified to say that if the prime justification for SS is that it's a long-lived flavor of the month, and that it just repackages and renames things we already know, I can do just fine without it. I'm thinking of creating a new designation for people like me who have the knowledge, experience and hair color to know what works and what doesn't, but just need permission to do what's needed: gray belt.

This is a good point, but has nothing to do with SS, per se. As long ago as the mid-1980s I recognized that many "defects" have their origins in the specifications and not in the fitness for use of the parts. Juran defined "quality" as "fitness for use" long before I embraced the concept, and long before SS was an evil twinkle in Motorola's eye.

I'm not a BB or a CQE, and I think I'm qualified to say that if the prime justification for SS is that it's a long-lived flavor of the month, and that it just repackages and renames things we already know, I can do just fine without it. I'm thinking of creating a new designation for people like me who have the knowledge, experience and hair color to know what works and what doesn't, but just need permission to do what's needed: gray belt.

The problem with "fitness for use" is that quite often, subtier vendors, and their operators and inspectors, will not have the necessary knowledge to judge fitness for use. They have to believe the spec, even when it's wrong.

I never said that being long lived was a justification. The justification is that the tool set will indeed work, and management will listen enough for the people with the knowledge (like you and me) to be able to make it work. You certainly need no permission from anyone except your clients to do what's needed, and I intended no slur on your knowledge. I use the certs as a quick shorthand to describe my knowledge level, since I am new here and relatively unknown. I like your gray belt idea. I started as an inspector in 1976, do I qualify?

Geoff Withnell

The problem with "fitness for use" is that quite often, subtier vendors, and their operators and inspectors, will not have the necessary knowledge to judge fitness for use. They have to believe the spec, even when it's wrong.
I don't think that "fitness for use" is necessarily a comprehensive definition, but for suppliers, fitness for use is attained by meeting whatever specifications they're given. The "use" in this case is salable material. It's up to the designer to assure that the specifications are correct.

I never said that being long lived was a justification.
Your words:
I was referring to staying power. I think it is obvious that SS will be around a while, and has already out lasted such gems as "Quality Circles". The justification is that the tool set will indeed work...
So will this one: :D

http://elsmar.com/jpg/rubenapkinfd9.gif


and management will listen enough for the people with the knowledge (like you and me) to be able to make it work.
If management is inclined to provide leadership in process improvement, SS is superfluous. On the other hand, if management isn't interested in leadership, and is indifferent to improvement proposals, it doesn't make any difference how many tools you have. SS doesn't address the primary problem, which is lack of leadership.

You certainly need no permission from anyone except your clients to do what's needed, and I intended no slur on your knowledge.
Nor I on yours, but if you think that you don't need management permission and backing to make major changes...

I use the certs as a quick shorthand to describe my knowledge level, since I am new here and relatively unknown. I like your gray belt idea. I started as an inspector in 1976, do I qualify?

You've earned the certifications, so you might as well use them. :D
I haven't got it all worked out yet, but I think it will be illegal to have a BB and a GB concurrently, but probably just a misdemeanor.:lol:

By the way, the primary Gray Belt problem-solving strategy is WTHH&W (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=204191#post204191)

ROTFLMAO!

WTHH&W™ may just be the most concise and accurate improvement cycle I have seen. I love it. The last step (get back to work) is of course key. What's the license fee?


Geoff Withnell:lmao:

ROTFLMAO!

WTHH&W™ may just be the most concise and accurate improvement cycle I have seen. I love it. The last step (get back to work) is of course key. What's the license fee?


Geoff Withnell:lmao:

I'm still working out the details.

http://elsmar.com/jpg/realwriteram7.jpg

Six Sigma does nothing contrary to the teachings of Dr. Deming.

Jim Shelor

Jim,
Sadly Six Sigma does worse than contradict Deming. It has sent quality back to the dark ages. Deming would turn in his grave if he could hear some of the Six Sigma nonsense. The following draft paper explains:
Six Sigma: Lessons from Deming (http://users.bigpond.net.au/SixSigmaFallacies/SSDeming.htm)

The problem with "fitness for use" is that quite often, subtier vendors, and their operators and inspectors, will not have the necessary knowledge to judge fitness for use. They have to believe the spec, even when it's wrong.
Geoff Withnell

The fundamental problem is that "fitness for use" is a specification based definition. In this regard it is similar to "Zero defects", "Six Sigma", "Conformance to Requirements" etc. Taguchi was instrumental in pointing out the failings of such approaches. World Class Quality can only mean on target with minimum variance.

The fundamental problem is that "fitness for use" is a specification based definition.
What do we have to go on, if not specifications? Is there some sort of Zen-like part of this that I'm not aware of?

In this regard it is similar to "Zero defects", "Six Sigma", "Conformance to Requirements" etc.

The first is an empty slogan, the second is an empty "strategy," but conformance to requirements and fitness for use are the real world. As I suggested earlier, conformance to requirements doesn't necessarily equal fitness for use, but from the supplier end of things it does.

Taguchi was instrumental in pointing out the failings of such approaches. World Class Quality can only mean on target with minimum variance.

Ah, "World Class Quality™©" another meaningless bit of fluff. If achieving it means we must be on target, and we eschew "specification based" leanings, where does the target come from?

What do we have to go on, if not specifications? Is there some sort of Zen-like part of this that I'm not aware of?

Specifications are a step function where a product is described as being "OK" on one side of some arbitrary line and "not OK" on the other side. In reality quality varies in some continuous fashion about an optimum value.

To achieve the Zen-like appreciation of what quality is all about, you may wish to read a detailed explanation in Ch8, page 197, "Advanced Topics in SPC", Wheeler.

Specifications are a step function where a product is described as being "OK" on one side of some arbitrary line and "not OK" on the other side. In reality quality varies in some continuous fashion about an optimum value.
Redefining a term and then arguing against the new definition is what's known as a Straw man argument. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a target specification (the "optimum value") and limits dictated by function. Those are specifications, regardless of what you choose to call them.

To achieve the Zen-like appreciation of what quality is all about, you may wish to read a detailed explanation in Ch8, page 197, "Advanced Topics in SPC", Wheeler.

I've read it, although I don't have my copy available. Despite my great respect for Wheeler and his invaluable contributions, I don't need him to know "what quality is all about." In this instance, I prefer the teachings of the great statistical guru Bob Dylan (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/subterranean.html), who said "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

In this instance, I prefer the teachings of the great statistical guru Bob Dylan (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/subterranean.html), who said "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Hi Jim,

Here's to you: srgi2DkDbPU

Stijloor.

Redefining a term and then arguing against the new definition is what's known as a Straw man argument. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a target specification (the "optimum value") and limits dictated by function. Those are specifications, regardless of what you choose to call them.

There is no new definition. You have a misunderstanding here. A "target" is NOT a "specification".

While you will find plenty of explanations of Taguchi's Loss Function on the net, Wheeler's book "Advanced Topics in SPC" is a great investment for anyone who is serious about quality.

There is no new definition. You have a misunderstanding here. A "target" is NOT a "specification".


Thanks for the explanation. :confused:

There is no new definition. You have a misunderstanding here. A "target" is NOT a "specification".

While you will find plenty of explanations of Taguchi's Loss Function on the net, Wheeler's book "Advanced Topics in SPC" is a great investment for anyone who is serious about quality.
I agree with Jim.

A target is a specification. The target is what the customer wants but the customer is willing to accept + here to - there.

Jim Shelor

I agree with Jim.

A target is a specification. The target is what the customer wants but the customer is willing to accept + here to - there.

Jim Shelor

I understand the distinction that arti is trying to make, but it's a distinction without a difference, and appeals to authority won't help. Targets don't fall out of the sky, and they don't magically appear out of nowhere. They either result from specifications or result in specifications. But without someone telling you what they need, you ain't goin' nowhere.

I understand the distinction that arti is trying to make, but it's a distinction without a difference, and appeals to authority won't help. Targets don't fall out of the sky, and they don't magically appear out of nowhere. They either result from specifications or result in specifications. But without someone telling you what they need, you ain't goin' nowhere.
Jim,

That is correct.

I was agreeing with you.

Jim Shelor

Jim,

That is correct.

I was agreeing with you.

Jim Shelor

Thanks, Jim. I was aware that you were agreeing with me. I took the liberty of assuming so when you said, "I agree with Jim." :cool::D

Thanks for the explanation. :confused:

I'm not sure why some find the difference between a target value and a specification range difficult to understand. If you can't afford Don Wheeler's book, his article The Six Sigma Zone (http://www.spcpress.com/pdf/The_Final_6_Sigma_Zone.pdf) gives some graphs and discussion of the concept.
His conclusion by the way, in relation to Six Sigma's numbers is that they "represent a triumph of computation over common sense."

I'm not sure why some find the difference between a target value and a specification range difficult to understand.
Once again, I understand the difference, or what you refer to as a difference.I'm just not as impressed with it as you are.
His conclusion by the way, in relation to Six Sigma's numbers is that they "represent a triumph of computation over common sense."
This we can agree on. :agree:

:topic:

Thanks, Jim. I was aware that you were agreeing with me. I took the liberty of assuming so when you said, "I agree with Jim." :cool::D


Well, I agree that an agreement was made between the agreer/agreee that's agreeable.:tg:

Sorry Jim and Jim (did you see out on a limb? the two brothers named Jim?) you kind of left that one set up.:yes:

Once again, I understand the difference, or what you refer to as a difference.

The difference: Target is a single point. Specification is the range of values between two limits.
A final quote from Dr Wheeler in his criticism of "specification based nostrums" such as six sigma:
" World class quality has been defined as 'on target with minimum variance' for the past thirty years ! The sooner one wakes up to this fact of life, the sooner one can begin to compete. "

Whether the goal is a target or a specification, I am most interested in determining the optimal values and what is the process capability. I do not allows believe that the specs are optimal. Someone created the specs and people are capable of mistakes.

I have been told to crucify my suppliers over dimensions that meant absolutely nothing! These dimensions had absolutely no effect on the finished product. With that in mind, my goal is always to find out what measurements are really important and then to see if my processes and my suppliers' processes are capable of maintaining these measurements. If not, what can I do to improve the situation.

Somehow I missed this when it was posted.
The difference: Target is a single point. Specification is the range of values between two limits.
You are making up your own definitions. Who says that a "target" can't be a nonspecific point between two boundaries? If I specify what you describe as a target, then I've given you a specification.

A final quote from Dr Wheeler in his criticism of "specification based nostrums" such as six sigma:
" World class quality has been defined as 'on target with minimum variance' for the past thirty years ! The sooner one wakes up to this fact of life, the sooner one can begin to compete. "

Using your definitions of "target" and "specification," "On target with minimum variance" makes no sense. Specifications don't conflict with the concept of a target value, nor do tolerance limits conflict with the idea of minimum variance.

You are making up your own definitions.
I'm sorry, but I can't lay claim to these definitions. As you suggest, you could describe a "target" and a "specification" as anything you wish, however these terms have a meaning of common usage in the area of quality. You may wish to read Shewhart and Deming to gain a better understanding of these fundamental quality terms.

I'm sorry, but I can't lay claim to these definitions. As you suggest, you could describe a "target" and a "specification" as anything you wish, however these terms have a meaning of common usage in the area of quality. You may wish to read Shewhart and Deming to gain a better understanding of these fundamental quality terms.
From the post you quoted (from 3 months ago): Who says that a "target" can't be a nonspecific point between two boundaries? I don't need to reread Shewhart and Deming. The "meaning of common usage" you refer to isn't common at all and certainly isn't prescriptive. Look at this:

http://elsmar.com/jpg/archery bullseye.jpg

If I ask you to shoot an arrow and hit the yellow bit in the center, is that the target? If it is, what is the whole thing called? If you don't hit hit the yellow "bullseye" directly in the middle, was your shot "on target"? If so, "target" allows for variation within the specification, no?

Yes, prior to Shewhart and in the days of quality assurance, "on target" was defined as being "in specification". There was a step change between the yellow and red in your diagram. Yellow was "good" and red was "bad" or "defective".

This simplistic view of quality advanced with great thinkers like Shewhart, Deming, Taguchi and more recently, Wheeler. The works of these men should be essential reading for anyone involved in quality.

Yes, prior to Shewhart and in the days of quality assurance, "on target" was defined as being "in specification". There was a step change between the yellow and red in your diagram. Yellow was "good" and red was "bad" or "defective".

This simplistic view of quality advanced with great thinkers like Shewhart, Deming, Taguchi and more recently, Wheeler. The works of these men should be essential reading for anyone involved in quality.

The simplistic view, as you call it, is quite often what is going on in the real world. As a concrete example, if I am buying 6-32UNC nuts to mate with some 6-32UNC screws I have, the specification gives a range for the pitch diameter of the thread. Given the PD is in spec, I can be sure the screws and nuts will go together in a predictable fashion. If they are out of spec, I do not have that assurance. Is there a nominal target for the PD? Yes, of course. Do I, as a nut user, care how well centered inside the specs the PD is, so long as it is within spec? Not in the slightest! There is a point in reducing variation where the level of variation stops affecting value or fitness for use. This is the point Crosby was making with his full definition of quality, which is often truncated. "Quality is conformance to the requirement, or officially changing the requirement to what we and our customers really need." (emphasis added).

BTW, I have read, and I'm quite sure Jim has read, Shewhart, Deming, Taguchi, and Wheeler, among others, and also applied those teachings in the real world.

Geoff Withnell

The simplisitic view of quality is no doubt continuing in the real world. Despite the 80 or so years since Shewhart's work, many have not progressed. Six Sigma's emphasis on defects and specification limits has resulted in a further regression in thinking.

If the manufacturer is only concerned about the upper and lower specification limits as his/her "target", the only way to ensure that this is achieved will be to implement 100% inspection of product.

Deming's point 3 states:
Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

Taguchi examined the costs of achieving this quality ... costs which are inevitably passed on to the customer.

The simplisitic view of quality is no doubt continuing in the real world. Despite the 80 or so years since Shewhart's work, many have not progressed. Six Sigma's emphasis on defects and specification limits has resulted in a further regression in thinking.

If the manufacturer is only concerned about the upper and lower specification limits as his/her "target", the only way to ensure that this is achieved will be to implement 100% inspection of product.

Deming's point 3 states:
Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

Taguchi examined the costs of achieving this quality ... costs which are inevitably passed on to the customer.Not many would refute my commitment to Deming principles and theories of Quality. I'm certainly aware of Taguchi and have even called many of his so-called break throughs as "derivative." This paraphrase of Taguchi is misleading at best and completely ignores the concept of "net cost in place" after considering all the hard and soft costs of sorting, repairing, discarding, over-producing, corresponding back and forth between suppliers and buyers, and of opportunity lost while performing all such activities.

Certainly, Crosby was being simplistic and mindful of the sound-bite of the phrase, "Quality is Free!" However, in the overall sense of net cost in place, he was accurate in stating so and could, in fact, walk top managers through his reasoning and secure their cooperation in implementing quality improvement programs aimed at preventing defects, rather than detecting defects.

:topic:Re: If the manufacturer is only concerned about the upper and lower specification limits as his/her "target", the only way to ensure that this is achieved will be to implement 100% inspection of product.Is there anyone today who REALLY believes 100% inspection will detect all defects? I certainly recall always seeing at least one red bead end up in the bucket of white beads at the end of the Red Bead "Experiment."

Hi Wes,

My reference to Taguchi relates to Dr Don Wheeler's analysis in Ch 8.6 "Advanced Topic is SPC". Variation ultimately results in a variety of costs in many areas as you suggest. Losses will take the form of some function with some minimum value. Wheeler shows from this that the Average Loss is the mean square deviation about target for a stable process. The latter is a measure of performance relative to "on target with minimum variance" (where "target" is a value, not a range)

I agree that 100% inspection cannot guarantee to detect all defects however, if one does not practise Deming's principles and relies on "it's OK if it's in spec" as has been suggested, or "just broaden the spec limits", there's few alternatives.

The aim should be to minimise costs by keeping processes on target (that is, not a range and without "drifts and shifts") with minimum variance.

This paraphrase of Taguchi is misleading at best and completely ignores the concept of "net cost in place" after considering all the hard and soft costs of sorting, repairing, discarding, over-producing, corresponding back and forth between suppliers and buyers, and of opportunity lost while performing all such activities.
It does nothing of the kind; Taguchi is merely stating what should be obvious, that being that costs of inspection will inevitably find their way into pricing, and we need to find more economical ways of confirming conformance.

Certainly, Crosby was being simplistic and mindful of the sound-bite of the phrase, "Quality is Free!" However, in the overall sense of net cost in place, he was accurate in stating so and could, in fact, walk top managers through his reasoning and secure their cooperation in implementing quality improvement programs aimed at preventing defects, rather than detecting defects.

Not sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion, but I personally believe Crosby did a lot of self-serving damage with his "Zero Defects" mantra and his contention that a pragmatic view of process capability--acknowledgment that some level of defects is inevitable in many cases--means that pragmatism causes defects to happen.

:topic:Re:Is there anyone today who REALLY believes 100% inspection will detect all defects? I certainly recall always seeing at least one red bead end up in the bucket of white beads at the end of the Red Bead "Experiment."
The fact of the matter is that there are some cases where 100% inspection is efficacious, and it doesn't matter whether it detects all defectives or not.

The aim should be to minimise costs by keeping processes on target (that is, not a range and without "drifts and shifts") with minimum variance.

I think we're talking past each other here, and the hangup is only the definition of "target." You can't on the one hand acknowledge that some variation is inevitable (and you do acknowledge this, I trust) and then say that the "target" can't take that minimum level of variation into account. There are always going to be limits around some nominal or ideal value that we have to deal with in the real world.

It does nothing of the kind;

Have you read Dr Wheeler's books ? I would strongly recommend it. You would want to be very sure of yourself to make an unsupported statement criticising the world's leading statistician in SPC.


but I personally believe Crosby did a lot of self-serving damage with his "Zero Defects" mantra and his contention that a pragmatic view of process capability--acknowledgment that some level of defects is inevitable in many cases--means that pragmatism causes defects to happen.

I agree that "zero" defects is as bad as the nonsensical "3.4", however defects are not "inevitable". Only variation is "inevitable"


The fact of the matter is that there are some cases where 100% inspection is efficacious, and it doesn't matter whether it detects all defectives or not.

Who needs quality anyway !
( I shouldn't have it say it but I am being facetious )

Have you read Dr Wheeler's books ? I would strongly recommend it. You would want to be very sure of yourself to make an unsupported statement criticising the world's leading statistician in SPC.
I was responding to Mr. Bucey's characterization of your reference to Taguchi, not anything Wheeler said. Do try to keep up. :tg:




I agree that "zero" defects is as bad as the nonsensical "3.4", however defects are not "inevitable". Only variation is "inevitable" If you believe that there are no situations where defects will happen despite the best efforts to prevent them, you need more experience out where the people are running the machines. Eliminate human error and you'll be going to Stockholm to pick up your Nobel.




Who needs quality anyway !
( I shouldn't have it say it but I am being facetious )
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find...

Taguchi is merely stating what should be obvious.

Perhaps I should have included your quote above.

The Taguchi viewpoint is clearly not obvious to you. Taguchi's continuous Loss Function is in marked contrast to your step function. A continuous function with a minimum value is markedly different to a "bad-to-good-to-bad", specification range as a target, that you posted earlier in your diagram.

"Specification based nostrums" such as that to which you allude, are criticised by Dr Wheeler (p 202 "Advanced Topics in SPC") where he states "World Class Quality is on target (not a range) with minimum variance. The sooner one wakes up to this fact of life, the sooner one can begin to compete."

Defects are NOT "inevitable". A process that is operating in statistical control and with sufficiently broad specification limits, would be unlikely to produce defects. However, in this situation, defects are still possible but not "inevitable". Broadening specification limits as suggested by Six Sigma is in itself no guarantee of any particular level of defects, particularly if the claimed "drifts and shifts" occur, indicating out of control processes.

Once again I suggest that you read Dr Wheeler's books to "keep up" with the modern view of quality.

Perhaps I should have included your quote above.

The Taguchi viewpoint is clearly not obvious to you. Taguchi's continuous Loss Function is in marked contrast to your step function. A continuous function with a minimum value is markedly different to a "bad-to-good-to-bad", specification range as a target, that you posted earlier in your diagram.

"Specification based nostrums" such as that to which you allude, are criticised by Dr Wheeler (p 202 "Advanced Topics in SPC") where he states "World Class Quality is on target (not a range) with minimum variance. The sooner one wakes up to this fact of life, the sooner one can begin to compete."

Defects are NOT "inevitable". A process that is operating in statistical control and with sufficiently broad specification limits, would be unlikely to produce defects. However, in this situation, defects are still possible but not "inevitable". Broadening specification limits as suggested by Six Sigma is in itself no guarantee of any particular level of defects, particularly if the claimed "drifts and shifts" occur, indicating out of control processes.

Once again I suggest that you read Dr Wheeler's books to "keep up" with the modern view of quality.

:frust: :truce:

This is one of the funnier strings of posts I have read on The Cove in a long time. Zero defects, Taguchi's lost function, Dr. Wheelers books and even Deming's principles are about vision. No process will ever be perfectly centered with minimum variance. It might be centered with low variance, but all processes have variance. It is true that driving out variability is good, but if you were in management of a company with no defects, you would probably ask one of two questions. 1. Are our customers happy with the product? 2. How can we reduce our specification width?

This is one of the funnier strings of posts I have read on The Cove in a long time. Zero defects, Taguchi's lost function, Dr. Wheelers books and even Deming's principles are about vision. No process will ever be perfectly centered with minimum variance. It might be centered with low variance, but all processes have variance. It is true that driving out variability is good, but if you were in management of a company with no defects, you would probably ask one of two questions. 1. Are our customers happy with the product? 2. How can we reduce our specification width?

I think perhaps what we're dealing with here is that some people seem to think that theoretical concepts regarding variation, being True, may always be applied to the place where variation actually happens without our old friend Murphy sticking his fingers in. As I tried unsuccessfully to explain earlier, if you use Artichoke's definition of "target," the concept of "on target with minimum variation" becomes nonsense because he refuses to acknowledge that the target exists between the specified limits where minimum variation is expected to occur. Values that consistently fall within those limits are"on target" for all practical purposes.

This is one of the funnier strings of posts I have read on The Cove in a long time. Zero defects, Taguchi's lost function, Dr. Wheelers books and even Deming's principles are about vision. No process will ever be perfectly centered with minimum variance. It might be centered with low variance, but all processes have variance. It is true that driving out variability is good, but if you were in management of a company with no defects, you would probably ask one of two questions. 1. Are our customers happy with the product? 2. How can we reduce our specification width?

Or,

3. How can we reduce costs and/or increase profits while maintaining our customers' satisfaction?

Of course, this is a nod towards Taguchi's vision.

Or,

3. How can we reduce costs and/or increase profits while maintaining our customers' satisfaction?

Of course, this is a nod towards Taguchi's vision.

http://elsmar.com/jpg/Einstein.jpg



Everything else is navel-gazing.


You can make your own Einstein-at-the-chalkboard here (http://www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php).

Poll Closed - 11JULY08

As I tried unsuccessfully to explain earlier, if you use Artichoke's definition of "target," the concept of "on target with minimum variation" becomes nonsense because he refuses to acknowledge that the target exists between the specified limits where minimum variation is expected to occur. Values that consistently fall within those limits are"on target" for all practical purposes.

You my define "target" as you wish. Shewhart, Deming, Wheeler define it as I've described.

The poll is a sad reflection on the state of quality in USA today. The six sigma hype and nonsense has obviously worked well. Companies following Deming's philosphies such as Toyota, must be laughing !

Options 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 from the poll options are the same IMHO.

This is important because if you add the figures from the same categories the poll options the chart would tell us another thing from what it's telling us right now.