posted 30 April 2000 01:21 PM               

To: "ASQ Members"
From: "Dick Sandretti" dsandretti at the asq.org
Reply-to: "Dick Sandretti" dsandretti at the asq.org
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.

posted 18 May 2000 08:53 PM               

-----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.