Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History

[Steven Truchon]

To Andy,
Statistics do not do anything except reveal results based on the data input.
Do I expect to improve quality due to stats?
Yes, if I answer the results from careful input with a correction in an improvement direction which may well include your suggestion regarding personnel, among other things.

-Always feeling awkward (hey, Im on earth!)

 

[Jim Biz]

Steve - Andy
Oh boy something I competley agree with - Stats don't "do" anything by themselves - (my opinion only) - stats are simply a tool that will give us an information "hint" about the decision to be made.
1)Where we should look to improve
2)Where we should not have a reason to be concerned.

And YES there is a "cost factor" difference between +/- 3 sigma and +/-4 or +/-12

The "tighter" one tries to hold widgets within increased sigma cpk or PPk boundries the higher the cost. As I see it that aspect is dificult to avoid & needs to be "justified" by actual observance of defects. After all even if a histogram predicts there are 6 or 6000 "probable defects" out there - how many in reality do I actually see when the "probable" defects are interacting with 4 or 5 other assembly variables that each have their own "probable" rate?? - If I match a "probably small shaft with a "probably large" bushing - the function of the part may in fact be no different than the design calls for anyway..

 

[John C]

Andy,

Statistics are very useful for improving quality and achieving cost reductions, in some cases more so than in others. Sometimes it is more useful to develop people. In practise, the right amount of both, plus a lot of other good stuff is the way to go.
But, tell me; Do you really believe that you can achieve quality without statistics?

rgds, John C

 

[Jim Winings]

Statistics is the cornerstone to improving quality. It gives you a visual picture, not to be confused with the non-visual picture, of your process capabilities. What you do or don't do with the information is the key to if it works.

It also helps if everyone that touches a piece part, looks at it, not inspect it actually, but look for the obvious. It cost much less in both $$$$ and PR to find defects and defectives in house.

------------------
Jim Winings

 

[mike1245 (aka mike525)]

Several months back (maybe longer) I asked in one of these forums "what was six sigma?" Since that time, I've read a number of articles, plus Mikel Harry's book on sig sigma (his claim is he was one of the original players at motorola when six sigma was initiated). Personally, I think it is a great concept. What Harry has done, in a nutshell (IMHO), is give companies what they've always wanted, a method to quantify (and justify) cost savings by implementing a quality initiative. Harry's most basic premise is that costs increase and functionality dcreases the farther one deviates from the nominal (huh, sounds like Taguchi loss function to me). But it makes sense, directly affects the bottom line, and BOTH supplier AND customer benefit. The cost of quality has always been a sore subject with me, and while Harry doesn't state it explicitly (again IMHO), he does imply that the cost of quality is the cost of doing business. I have reservations about the 1.5 shift, and Harry really doesn't bring anything "new" to table as far as individual quality tools, but he's done a great job of packaging and selling the concept. Companies like GE, Allied Signal, and Polaroid, to name a few, have bought into six sigma, with some rather impressive results.

 

[Kevin Mader]

John,

I just read through this thread and in your July 1 you stated:

Deming damns this 6 sigma sort of stuff. By the way, what did he actually say? I never heard but I'm sure he must have had some strong comment on the business.

The first thing that popped into my mind was that he said precise optimization was not desirable. It would be too costly. I really enjoyed that post of yours, by the way.

Mike 1245 posted:

Several months back (maybe longer) I asked in one of these forums "what was six sigma?" Since that time, I've read a number of articles, plus Mikel Harry's book on sig sigma (his claim is he was one of the original players at motorola when six sigma was initiated).

I felt at the time of your post you may have been fishing for some answers based on the large debate between Quality Progress (ASQ) and its members. Maybe the timing was coincidental.

Dr. Mikel Harry may be a pretty smart guy, but his arrogance and lack of respect for the men who founded statistical thinking and management philosophy shrouds his accomplishments (if truly any) in a dark, stinky cloud (in fact, his whole program is based on their works). His subsequent articles have the same arrogant tone, IMHO. Needless to say, I am not a fan of the cowboy.

Harry's plan lacks intrinsic motivation, focuses on numerical goal that are abitrarily set, and promotes short-term thinking. I believe that an organization is not in the business to make money as a primary objective (unless it is a fund raising organization). This belief was promoted and shared by Deming, Juran, and Sarasohn to name a few. Organizations should be in business to create jobs, and more jobs in fulfilling customers' needs, supporting with respect to the communittee, the enviroment, and its employees. Stockholders come somewhere after that. Harry's plan is about fulfiling the short-term investor at any cost. The reason that this is so popular is because of Wall Street's need to make instant riches. There is no instant pudding, WED. The promotion of Harry's plans by the CEOs of these organization only lend to the misunderstanding of the program's apparent success, IMHO. It isn't that easy, and if it were, we'd all be rich. JC's post from July 1 was right on the money, even from the perspective of a person acknowledging limited statistical knowledge (John, you do a pretty good job at explaining for such a novice). Six Sigma is more than statistics, it is a management methodology (philosophy). There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma thinking, from the perspective that it is used to promote reduction of variation and improve quality/productivity. However, Harry's slant on it and the Black Belt program at $35,000 a crack may show significant short term gains, but lacks long term thinking. However, it is making him a rich man! The organizations you listed have been successful for many years, even before Dr. Harry came along. Many factors can be attributed to their current success, and Harry Dent believes the success of many of the Fortune 500 organizations is based on spending waves (cyclical change) and structural change. I believe he is right on this. I would recommend Dent's books Our Power to Predict and The Great Boom Ahead.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group....

 

[Jim Winings]

Ok, I'm confused ...

Kevin Mader said ...
I believe that an organization is not in the business to make money as a primary objective (unless it is a fund raising organization).

Then where does it get the moneys to expand technology? These thoughts may have worked in the 40's, 50's 60's and even 70's, but, as technology grows in BIG leaps and bounds, it takes a lot of dollars, pounds, etc. to hire talent to stay on the cutting edge. Not to mention the cost of test equipment, etc.

If large companies can't save money, which making money is an alternitive to saving money, then where labor is cheaper will always win out. Becaise the money to purchase test equipment, etc. must come from somewhere. This in turn leads to lower wages and a poorer quality of life, and even a potential for issues like slave labor. This is NOT the same world that Deming was in 40 to 60 years ago.

Deming was correct, without a doubt in the 40's when he took SPC to Japan. But business is much more complex today.

I'm just not sure that Kevin's statement from above is applicable in today's 'New Economy' with world wide markets.

------------------
Jim Winings

 

[Mike1245]

Kevin:

Just one simple question - if a company's primary goal isn't to make money, then what is it? Seems to me that that's the primary goal to every business I know about. If you think a company's goal is working towards some higher, esoteric purpose, I'd like to know which one's. Bottom line, publicly held companies need to show fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders and other investors, and privately held companies are in it for the buck.

 

[Steven Truchon]

I submit to any "non-profit entrepeneurs" that one ask any shareholder or investor what is the primary function of a business? I have never once in my brief stay here on planet earth heard anyone state an intention to start a business because they believed so highly in a means of managing quality or so that they might make "something" with zero defects.

Excuse my 'tude but this was one that I had to have a moment with!

--- i know nothing and i can prove it !

 

[johno]

In occupied Japan in 1946 MacArthur needed radios for the Japanese but they were having problems building them. A former engineer of Crosley Corp., Homer Sarasohn, was dispatched to Japan, and with Charles Protzman of Western Electric they ended up putting together a course for Japanese managers. Some of the pupils in the first class were Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka, who founded Sony, Hanzou Omi of Fujitsu, Masaharu Matsushita of Matsushita Electric, and others. A motto was on the first page of the course material, from Newport News Shipbuilding; "We shall build good ships here; at a profit if we can, at a loss if we must, but always good ships."