Integration of Quality Function & Statistical Theory

M

Michael T

Gentlemen,

You both have valid points... unfortuantely in many of today's organizations, Energy's comment about "costing your head" is all too true. Too many VP's, etc., cannot or will not believe that us "underlings" know what we are talking about, even though we may have years of experience and/or education with which to draw from.

To understand the system of profound knowledge, one must study (notice I didn't say read) Deming's works. [Yep - I'm a Deming guy... got the 4 pillars of profound knowledge and the 14 points posted on my wall - Yet - western leaders won't take the time to study many, if any, of the works of Quality Management like they study their balance sheets.

I look at it this way... I promote the tools of Quality Management quietly, yet constantly and consistently... hoping the message is like water... over time it will eventually wear away at even the most stubborn resistance. If I continue to be correct, have my data correctly prepared and statistics correctly interpreted, I believe I will eventually get through to them. I may be overly optimistic.

I try to follow the philosophy of Personal Mastery outlined by Peter Senge in "The Fifth Discipline". If I can be an example, perhaps others will start to see that these tools really do work.

Cheers!!!

Mike
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
Mike,

“How could they know?”

I am sure you are familiar with this phrase. Yes, the process does take a long time. I have been at it for almost 6 years. Progress is slow, but it is being made. Converting VPs and Presidents is not a simple undertaking. This is repeated over and over again by Deming, Deming’s Disciples, and Senge. The Transformation will take years, most likely decades, and as Senge has pointed out, perhaps even longer (if the art becomes a Science, he suggests perhaps 200-300 years for full recognition). How many Senior Executives can wait beyond one month? Not many. This is why Deming’s SoPK is not very popular to Executives who use the Western Management Philosophy.

Perhaps the single biggest draw back for me with programs like Six Sigma is that the focus is on the short-term profit in relation to the dividend. This has great appeal to the Senior Executives who are eager to please the Stockholder. The Stockholder is a Supplier, nothing more. Who is in business to satisfy the Supplier and not the Customer (primarily anyway)? Six Sigma organizations. As of the information I have gathered, programs like Six Sigma “only dig deeper the pit we are in!”

I applaud your diligence to the process of transforming your organization. It is especially nice for me to have you at the Cove helping to spread the late Doctor’s message.

Regards,

Kevin
 
M

Michael T

Thanks Kevin...always glad to spread the good Dr.'s message... :D

"How could they know?" Whew.... without trying to sound cliche... You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink... Does that mean the horse doesn't know about water? I know - that is somewhat of a stretch for an analogy, but, these are the men/women who are responsible for the health/wellbeing of the company. If that responsiblity was on my shoulders, I most certainly would be looking for the most effective way(s) to keep my company effectively/efficiently operating in the long-run to the benefit of all stakeholders concerned.

I agree with the problem of 6-sigma... very short-term oriented the way it is currently used. However, I'm afraid I'm a little confused... how is a stockholder a supplier? By supplying capital to the company?

And now I just heard of a new buzz word... "Lean Sigma". Holy smokes... what next?

Cheers!!!

Mike
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
Mike,

Precisely correct! The stockholder supplies capital. In return, he gets a dividend (payment). Still, as a stockholder, his Vision must be the same as the Organization’s (a very difficult sell in my estimation). In today’s society, the stockholder sees himself at the center of the universe. As such, Senior Managers are forced to set “Stretch Goals” to meet this need. As such, this leads the Organization to Stretch in favor of the Supplier, not towards the Customer. The Customer/Organization relationship is the most important relationship between Organization/Stakeholders in the SYSTEM. As you point out, all relationships are important. All efforts should be made to optimize the relationships, but done so with consideration to the WHOLE SYSTEM. As Dr. Deming pointed out, some components in a System might work for a loss to contribute to the success of the System.

But which component in a System will work for a loss? The Organization? The Customer? The Stockholder? The Community? How about the Environment? Sadly, the Environment is the component most abused! Also sad, the Customer is often place third behind the Stockholder Dividend and the Organizational Profit (two major flaws with 6 Sigma programs). It is a difficult thing to do, no doubt about it. Balancing in proportion to contributions to the System is hard work. It is also constantly evolving (the System redesigned, expanded, or contracting). Some years, some components will work to a profit, some times a loss (hence, Stock fluctuation).

But 6 Sigma works to another disadvantage using SPC to a 6 sigma level. “Precise optimization is not desirable. It would be too costly!”, WED. Other than in areas of high risk (life or limb), running to 6 sigma levels would be too costly to the System. It isn’t necessarily hard to achieve 6 sigma, especially with effective methods to discount what a defect is, expanding the tolerance zone, or allowing for a 1.5 sigma shift by default. But at what cost to the Whole? Because these costs are not necessarily measured, it is easy to say that they don’t exist when they do. Manipulation for the sake of achieving 6 Sigma, is not 6 sigma. And even if this is achieved by honest means, have all risks to the Whole been clearly understood and accounted for?

The answers to problems exist in the process, not the result. Continuous Improvement does not require that a 6 sigma level be achieved. Use of SPC to understand the voice of the process combined with other tools such as Lean Manufacturing and a Management Philosophy may lead to Profound Results.

Regards,

Kevin
 
M

M Greenaway

I totally agree with the thread of this discussion that knowledge and application of statistical theory should be the backbone of a quality management system. It is amazing that ISO9000 has never adequately empasised this (barely touched it in fact). The revised standard is heading in the right direction, however its failure to explicitly state the use of statistical techniques will doom this standard to failure again in providing any real improvements to an organisation.

I'm sure the guy who would rather be fishing will have something to say on this :rolleyes:
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
I think that you might be right. A while back I picked up a book some guy wrote on the integration of statistical techniques with ISO9000:2000. Admitedly, it is rather low on my reading pile these days, but I'll get to it at some point this Winter. But in the opening thoughts, he does ellude to the under utilization and acceptance of statistical tools being used in the workplace.

I have always held that the ISO standard is too inspection tainted as well as the ISO auditors. But it must be for a reason: I'm not sure it is good.

Kev
 
G

Greg Maggard

Hey everyone,
Has anyone heard if Toyota or Honda are going to ISO or QS in the USA? If so then have you heard if they are going to be using the 6 Sigma system. Sales brought that up here about a week ago. I have no proof of such activities. Can you help and give facts to support or steer me in a direction, then push.:smokin:

It sounds costly:p
 
M

M Greenaway

Why ?

Why would Toyota or Honda go for such approval ?

They already have proven QMS in place, and their customers (the general public) have little knowledge or desire for such approvals.
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
I haven't heard of Honda or Toyota installing either an ISO/QS QMS or using Six Sigma. As pointed out by M Greenaway, both have QMSs and both have been working with statistical tools for almost 50 years. My personal opinion: they would see the use of both (ISO/QS, Six Sigma) as a step backwards.

Kevin
 
G

Greg Maggard

I come from the TPS systems 11+ years. I agree with you. These two companies have it on the ball. The differences I see are. Honda and Toyota systems are visual driven. In the ISO/QS systems are written based. These two systems go hand in hand. I know that Toyota and Honda are ISO over seas. This concept of being Cerified here in the USA has for the most part not happened. As Toyota keeps buying up the sub companies that supply toyota sub assembly and other Automotive companies
they will need to change. :thedeal: down the road.
 
Top Bottom