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

[D.Scott]

Re: Six Sigma - Valid?

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

** DEAD LINK REMOVED **

Dave

 

[Marc]

The link died, Dave. I removed it.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Want to view a zipped file

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)

 

[WALLACE]

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.

 

[QCAce]

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

 

[Bill Pflanz]

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

 

[WALLACE]

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.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

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

 

[Rob Nix]

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".

 

[QCAce]

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