Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same?

[Al Dyer]

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!

 

[energy]

Agreed!

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!

 

[db]

Another way to abuse the Cove

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)

 

[D.Scott]

YIKES!!!!

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

 

[Marc]

Abuse or Misuse?

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 piss 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.

 

[Marc]

Re: YIKES!!!!

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...

 

[Randy]

Duh...

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 --

 

[Marc]

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.

 

[Jim Biz]

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

 

[Michael T]

Let's back the pony up...

Hi all...

I've yet to see anyone come right out and say that 6S (I like Al's version... 6 $igma ) 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...

Cheers!!!