iSixSigma

Charles H

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 70 posts - 1 through 70 (of 70 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #167196

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mike,
    Looking forward to it.  Maybe we can have a discussion around the finer points of control charting and special versus common causes of variation ;-)
    Charles H.

    0
    #151118

    Charles H
    Participant

    In VSM it means load leveling – check out “Learning to See” by Rother and Shook for more info. 

    0
    #150958

    Charles H
    Participant

    I agree with this and other posts stating this is the great black hole of CI initiatives.  As others have said, the “soft” skills are the truly hard ones, and they are the most frequent causes for failures in CI. 
    At the TQM Seminar for Aerospace and Defense in 1992 (San Diego) Drucker said that he disagreed that people are naturally resistant to change, that they are one of the most adaptable creatures on earth.  He said that they resist change that they don’t understand the need for and that they are not a part of (having it rammed down their throats by the “we’re here to help” crowd).

    0
    #150956

    Charles H
    Participant

    Try looking up the subject area of TPM (Total Productive Maintenenace).  Productivity Inc. has several books on the subject.

    0
    #150917

    Charles H
    Participant

    No worries, I know what you mean
    Speaking of Deming being “amused,”  I wonder, can anyone find a picture of him with a smile on his face?  I do think he had a sense of humor, but he kept it to himself.  ;-)  He was a great man and it is sad how he has been forgotten.  Yeah, we all refer to him and such, but no one seems interested in studying the man and his theories, anymore.  The WEDI seminars aren’t being well attended these days.  I do hear that the Deming Scholars MBA Program at Fordham is still going, though.  Maybe, someday, we will get back to his message and theories and give them their due.  That is my eternal hope.

    0
    #150915

    Charles H
    Participant

    Ummm – it is not the operator that is out of control – it is the process!  Be very careful with this kind of “analysis.” 

    0
    #150911

    Charles H
    Participant

    Good post.  Just one thing – Deming never used plan, do, check, act – he used plan, do, study, act – and he was very emphatic about it, even saying “It was always study – I don’t know who changed it, but it is study, not check!”  To Deming, words had meaning and he was the consumate thinker, always developing theories, studying them and changing them when disproven.  Study has the element of analysis and thinking contained within it.  Check does not.  Let’s be true to Dr. Deming and use the PDSA, not PDCA cycle.

    0
    #150886

    Charles H
    Participant

    My dear friends,
    I believe that a Six Sigma professional requires many diverse skill sets.  Obviously, knowledge and ability to apply different tools and methods are a basic requirement.  Also required, in my humble opinion, is the ability to present one’s thoughts and knowledge in a coherent manner, with decorum and respecting the dignity of those we interact with, even those that we may have issues or disagreements with.  The level of rhetoric displayed here is beneath a Six Sigma professional. in my humble opinion.  Bringing personal insults against one another and their families is not a part of the mix.  Let’s try to keep it on a higher plain, shall we?

    0
    #144301

    Charles H
    Participant

    Ejaz,
    I think you need to take a look at your own organization’s culture as well.  When I hear things like “we can not change the supplier because they offer a very low price comparing to others” it tells me that your own organization needs to learn an appreciation for quality.  It’s the total life cycle costs that matter, as others have said.
    The amount of leverage you posses relative to your supplier is dependent upon several factors, among them are how much of your supplier’s sales is tied to your contract and how easy it would be for them to replace you as a customer – basically, the bottom line impact of keeping you versus losing you as a customer.  If you are easy to replace and represent a small portion of their revevnues – good luck!

    0
    #129496

    Charles H
    Participant

    Sorry, the link I posted in the previous message didn’t work when pasted into the search engine.  To find the article, go to the LEI website, log in, click on “Library” and then run a search for “Nave” and it should come up in the website search results
    Best of luck,
    Charles H.

    0
    #129495

    Charles H
    Participant

    The referenced article comparing Six Sigma, Lean and TOC  was written by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Dave Nave, a graduate of the Deming Scholars’ MBA Program at Fordham.  Womack received permission from the ASQ to post it on his LEI website and it can be found at the following link:
    http://www.lean.org/Community/Registered/ArticleDocuments/ASQ%20story%20on%20quality,%20sigma%20and%20lean.pdf
    Best to all,
    Charles H.

    0
    #128957

    Charles H
    Participant

    Some basic questions to help in understanding the situation:  what are the VPs trying to achieve?  What has moved the VPs to make this decision?  What is their aim in wanting to make the split?  What positive outcomes are they trying to achieve? 
    Best of luck,
    Charles H.

    0
    #128956

    Charles H
    Participant

    The core issue in this discussion, as I see it, is that the VSM tool has not been applied at the right place, by the right people – the management team.  Take a look at “Learning to See” and  “Value Stream Management” and they will make it very clear – VSM was not intended as a floor level tool.  Rather, it is a tool for the management team to use in seeing the “systems view.”.  Once this is done, a more detailed dive by process teams into the Value Stream, working the constraints, bottlenecks and variation issues is appropriate.
    Having the management team conduct the initial Current and Future State VSM does several things for you.  Chief among them is management’s education (in terms of the tools, the state of the organization and their interactions) and their buy in for the improvement process and projects / events.
    Just my two cents worth.
    Charles H.

    0
    #128278

    Charles H
    Participant

    Sea:
    You may as well go ahead and stop your charting and data gathering – sounds like the analysis is all after the fact anyway.  You have no control over your incoming materials, your process is out of control, and your measurement system is broken, all per your input to this thread.  You are not interested in using control charting for improvement of this process, so why bother?  It sounds a lot like you have a predetermined solution to reduce your data gathering and analysis costs as you see no value in it (small wonder), and that you are now trying to use process capability (which, in your analysis, is meaningless) to justify your decision.  Why go through all the bother?  Just stop doing it – no justification needed.  I personaly find tons of justification in your posts to continue the data gathering and maybe even increase its frequency.  But that’s just funny ole me . .
    Charles H.
    PS:  Would also be interested in the 95% and 99% confidence interval for your data sets compared to specs

    0
    #103736

    Charles H
    Participant

    Dave,
    Then, it would appear they have gotten what they have asked for.  I tend to think that with experience, you get someone who knows what to do and when to do it, how to gather and analyze the data, and turn it into information one can use to determine the bottlenecks and constraints.  I also find it curious that your lack of experience is the selling factor – you shun experience due to the “assumptions” they create, yet you come to this forum repeatedly to try and get those with experience to solve your problem for you.  Somehow, it doesn’t make a a lot of sense to me, but then, maybe it’s just me?

    0
    #86721

    Charles H
    Participant

    try http://www.deming.org – the Deming Institute

    0
    #85074

    Charles H
    Participant

    Sergio:No worries – glad to be of help.  Contact me at [email protected] and we can try some other ideas I have on getting you permission to use it.Take care,Charles H

    0
    #85072

    Charles H
    Participant

    Sergio:
    Dyncorp recently commissioned a survey through BenchNet (http://www.benchnet.com) on the use of Six Sigma.  Just go to their site and on the right hand side is a “Survey in Progress” menu.  At the bottom of that menu is a “GO” button to see the full list of surveys.  Click it and scroll down the list until you reach the survey on Six Sigma.  That’s where you’ll find it.  It gets into profits and cost savings generated, types of tracking and areas applied, etc.  It should give you some useful stats to use in your thesis.  As a participant, I received the results, but I am restricted from sharing them (bummer).  They do charge for membership (another bummer), but you can join on a monthly basis, which isn’t too bad on the wallet.
    Hope this helps and good luck!
    Charles H.
    Discloser:  I do not work for or with BenchnNet, nor do I know anyone that works for BenchNet or that is associated with the survey mentioned.  I was only a participant in the survey.

    0
    #85068

    Charles H
    Participant

    Nads:
    https://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020131a.asp
    This link will take you to an article that explains it all.  Hope this helps.
    Have a good day!
    Charles H

    0
    #85062

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mike:
    We are in “violent” agreement!  You hit it on the head.  I’m not creating a “Kumbaya” singing songs environment.  And behind closed doors is where the “in your face” belongs.  Responsibility and accountability still must be maintained. Like I said previously, in your face should not be a default style, but it does have it’s place.  Going to either extreme for a regular diet will generally get you into trouble.  Some people respond better to the in your face approach.  I just find them to be few in numbers.  It is up to the leaders to know which works best for whom.  One size does not fit all.
    When in the Navy we were told to always praise in public, rebuke in private.  It made sense to me then – it makes sense to me now.
    Hard driving for numbers –  absolutely.  Kill you if you don’t get 200% return, but only 175% . . . I think not.
    Like I said, I think we’re in “violent” agreement.
    Take care.
    Charles H

    0
    #85060

    Charles H
    Participant

    Stan:
    Never said there isn’t conflict.  Conflict is a good thing.  It moves the organization forward.  We just don’t have to be nasty about it and be confrontational in dealing with it.  If you’re not struggling and having some issues of conflict, you aren’t changing.  Put it on the table and deal with it, openly and honestly.  I have seen more back stabbing in your so called  “open and in your face” environment than in the ones that don’t.  Hidden agendas?  They exist everywhere.  There are always those who will try to manipulate, self-promote, and “play the games” in any organization.  No system is perfect.
    I also believe that when there’s a “fire,” it isn’t the time to hold a team meeting and reach consensus on which door we’re going to go out.  It’s time for a directive, not in your face, style.
    As for Skip?  He was “killed” by the internal political agenda and the in-your-face types that still existed at GM and saw him as a threat.  Kill the “maverick” that isn’t like the rest of us back in good ole Detroit. Gee – wonder why Saturn isn’t what it used to be?  They have your kind of environment, Stan, not Skip’s.
    And, I think this all ties back to the thread where some were saying you don’t need the senior management to be involved.  Hopefully, some are seeing the integrations of all this.  Even tremendous success stories that no one could argue with, get killed when there is no alignment from the top to the bottom of the organization.  Even being located in Spring Hill, Tennessee – far from the environment of Detroit, couldn’t save the “great experiment” of Saturn in the ’90s
    I’ve told you the benefit of the environment I prefer to work in.  Please, what is the list of benefits you gain from yours?  And it is interesting how you don’t like “Keith K’s world,” but then you basically defend it, here.  It is, after all, the same kind of environment as the one you support for yourself.
    If you’re truly interested, a 360 review would probably show you some interesting things from those that are on the receiving end of your preferred style.  But . . . we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree.  You have chosen your preferred environment to work in and I have chosen mine.
    Best of luck to you

    0
    #85056

    Charles H
    Participant

    Stan,
    To be honest, I was a little stunned and somewhat doubtful that it was you that posted the apology.  I do appreciate your honesty.  I was about to think we were going to have a breakthrough, hold hands and sing songs!  :-)  But, what the heck.  The weather in San Diego is gorgeous and you’re always welcome to come over if you’re in town and we’ll sit by the pool, have a cold drink and we’ll tell stories.
    As for your assertion.  Fear and in-your-face styles are not the same? Would you agree that the in-your-face is a style is a form of intimidation?
    I say absolutely! And what is the benefit of an intimidation style if not to get compliance based upon fear? Compliance through fear is the value that one derives from such styles.  It’s all about the exercise of power. 
    Let me present to different perspectives to power: that which is taken against one’s will, and that which is given freely and willingly.
    Some guy wrote a book way back about  . . .   20 years ago?  Called “Winning Through Fear and Intimidation.”  The two are linked in the book as they are in life.  Inextricably so. Intimidation (in-your-face) is fear by definition, as shown in the following:
    Main Entry: in·tim·i·dateEtymology: Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timidDate: 1646: to make timid or fearful (my emphasis) : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats – in·tim·i·dat·ing·ly adverb- in·tim·i·da·tion /-“ti-m&-‘dA-sh&n/ noun- in·tim·i·da·tor /-‘ti-m&-“dA-t&r/ noun
    I have always thought of the in-your-face, intimidation, and fear based styles to be like a well with a finite amount of water in it.  Everytime we use these kinds of power based styles, we “drain the well” – sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.  After a while, it’s empty.  And so is our “power.”  And if a little water should trickle back into the well from some crack or seam, it is never back to its full measure.  People “give” grudgingly if at all.  They withdraw from active participation and dread the experience.  They are sapped of their energy and creativity.  And like someone just said in another thread, just when you need their helping hand, they’ll be waving goodbye to you.
    On the other side, the cooperative, collaborative leadership styles tend to have a infinite amount of “power” that isn’t taken, but earned.  It is given willingly by those who are lead. 
    I was given a wonderful book a while back.  It’s called “The Servant: A Simple Story About The True Essence of Leadership.,” by James C. Hunter.  It is a short and good read, if you’re open to the message.  The main premise of the book being that the truly effective leaders, like Skip LaFeauve at Saturn (again), come from a perspective of love and service to those they lead. 
    Skip presented a Keynote Address at the “TQM Seminar For Aerospace and Defense back in 1992.”  A bunch of us from General Dynamics put it together.  I wish we could have taped it.  600 people were ready to go buy a Saturn after he was done – and many did.  It was truly something.  And he wasn’t dynamic and running around the stage like some hyped-up gurus we know.  He was very calm and resolute.  And very powerful in his message: “You really have to care about people,” he said. 
    The story of how Saturn came into being is truly amazing, when you consider the social issues that had to be solved so that the people could focus on designing and building a high quality vehicle.  Skip also said – to the best of my long term memory – but this is very close if not exact: “As leaders, we have 1,000 opportunites every day to do ‘the right thing.’  And believe me, the people are watching.  All we have to do is screw it up one time, and all our talk about quality will be for nothing.”
    The interesting thing is, my experience has been that those who tend towards the fear based styles are within their own world of fear, for a myriad of reasons.  And utlimately, in my analysis, it always comes down to our individual values and beliefs and the old saying of “we are who we were when . . “. 
    Stan, I think we all want to leave a legacy of growth and prosperity for our families, friends, communities and companies.  And again I would ask, by what means can we best achieve our objectives?  As leaders, we must always examine if our methodology matches the intended aim and if it is true to our objective?  It really does come down to a personal choice.
    Take care,
    Charles H

    0
    #84954

    Charles H
    Participant

    Ray,
    I cannot agree with a flat statement that GBs are NVA.  Maybe it isn’t what works for you and your company, but I have seen companies where GBs bring in the lions share of returns over the long term. Different strokes for different folks!
    Charles H

    0
    #84930

    Charles H
    Participant

    Raytheon may also be classified as one of those “successful” Six Sigma companies by some and they got caught a few years ago (in the middle of their Lean Six Sigma rollout) cooking the books on aircraft delivery in order to make their numbers.  Each BB had to return a savings $1M per project, or else.  Get enough BBs and we can get our $8B in savings!  Nothing more than simple math.  I guess I would question the numbers related to any projects in this kind of environment. 
    An internal culture of fear is never a good thing.  High pressure and demanding environments can be handled without fear and intimidation.  And again, I refer you to Saturn under Skip Lafeauve.
    Many times, I think the real success stories aren’t the one’s that hit the Wall Street Journal.  They are the companies that just quietly and efficiently go about their business, doing “their thing,” satisfying employees and customers alike.  They set stretch goals, but understand the true nature of “stretch.”  They allow and learn from their mistakes, not killing anyone in the process, but never repeating them, either.  And they realize that the average employee is powerless to change the system without an active, supportive culture established by the  management team.
    And please, don’t get me wrong: team based initiatives are not for every company nor for every problem.  Some can and do make good money and good product without it and some people do thrive in those kinds of environments.  But I generally find these companies to have suboptimal processes and results.  And improvement comes slowly, if ever.  The competitive world is chewing them up and spitting them out, one by one.  I actually had one manager tell me, quit seriously, that “This is a good team.  They do everything I tell them to.”
    Our airline industry is learning a very hard lesson right now (and again), with ineffective systems, entrenched unions, and manufacturers that refuse to give an inch. Or they do so with very watchful eyes and heavy skepticism, feeling they have no choice (which they don’t).  However, there is one that continuously does well because they have efficient and lean systems, they treat their employees with dignity and respect overall, and they are fierce competitors in the market: Southwest Airlines.  Many have tried to copy them, but they just don’t get it.  And I hear no rumblings about “Six Sigma” over there, though they are tracking the numbers and very well may be doing it.  Why give it a name?  These are our values, it’s what we believe and this is what we do, every day.  It’s everone’s job.
    Unfortunately, with many companies, it’s like the early days of SPC and Lean: “Let’s all go to Japan and find the ‘Japanese Secret.’  We found the secret!  We have the Silver Bullet!” Next thing you know, they want us to do exercises in the morning and wear colorful little bump caps and coats, and take lots of data on everything. So we had directors of major, mutli billion dollar programs tracking pencil utilization and would personally control it, allowing only two pencils per person per week.  All to no end result. 
    “Well, that didn’t work, let’s try something else!  Hey, let’s do Six Sigma and be like Jack!”  One company I worked with modeled everything they did after GE.  Completely different culture, products, everything.  It didn’t work.  It isn’t working.
    When it’s all said and done, there is nothing left but the hard work of aligning what we do with where we want to be and developing the best methods for us to achieve it.  Each case is differnet.  It truly does take “profound knowledge,” of our company, our people, our markets, our benchmarks and our competition.  If we are really in this for the long haul, we have to realize that “beating the horse” will make it run faster, but not farther.  We may be in a race to get the results ahead of the competition and for the Board of Directors, but we want the horse to be able to survive to race again another day.
    Thanks for a good – and necessary – discussion. I look forward to any and all responses.  Take care, all.
    Charles H.
     

    0
    #84560

    Charles H
    Participant

    Jay,There are three options, as I see it.  “Defend” with “data”, hoping to back them down and prove your customer wrong; do nothing and keep quiet, hoping another fire will take this one’s place and everyone will forget about it; or get to the root cause and actually fix the problem.  Two of the could lose your customer for you.  Concentrate on finding the root cause and fixing the problem – if the problem lies with the customer or with you, it’s a win/win. Just my two cents worth.  I must say, I do find your post interesting.Take care,Charles H

    0
    #84543

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mike:
    My last on this tangent.
    I think (or at least I hope) that the male attitude has changed in the past 60 years.   Yes and no, I guess, as I’m sure many will attest.  
    I think part of it, too, was that the aircraft industry, and Convair in particular, began to view themselves as more of an engineering company than a manufacturing company (due to the new missile technologies and the “jet age”).   Thus, they probably had an engineering mindset in most that they did after the war.   They’re ultimate demise in the commercial aircraft industry (DC-10 and MD-11 fuselage assemblies aside) is testimony to this, I believe.  Their product designs definitely missed the needs of the market – but they were engineering marvels for their day!
    The B-24 and PBY were pretty mature products by the end of the war.  The focus was to get them out the door, with high levels of quality (“heaven help us if one of our mistakes causes one of ‘our boys’ their life!”).  They built over 18,000 Liberators – not sure on the numbers for the PBY, but I think it’s around 8,000 to 9,000, but I could be wrong. The lines were on a one hour, synchronized move.  One B-24 every hour, on the hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Roll it out, flight test it, correct any problems and deliver it.  Maybe we could learn something from those days.
    Today when I tour plants, I often see “The Monument” full of useless control charts, all pretty and nice in a glass covered case.  Lots of stratified data, special causes and such.  Usually a month or two old.  When I asked one company why they posted them, the answer was, “To show to our customers.”  We had a long heart-to-heart discussion after that.  Show me the charts that are smudged and dirty, eraser marks and cross outs on them and I’ll show you a place that is really doing it. 
    Take care and best wishes.
    Charles H.
     

    0
    #84537

    Charles H
    Participant

    Back in the good old days when I was at General Dynamics Convair, we went rummaging around through some of the old WWII documents of the B-24 Liberator and PBY-Catalina.  We found a bunch of old stuff on Deming and SPC – even found some of the old charts of drilling, countersinking and riveting, all greasy and smudged from their use on the floor.  One of the old timers that had been working at Convair back then told us that they had successfully used SPC during the war, but when all the men came back and pushed Rosey the Riveter out of their jobs, and with the military industrial complex downsizing drastically, they didn’t “need it anymore.”  Just thought this would be an interesting anecdote.
    Charles H

    0
    #84535

    Charles H
    Participant

    1.  Do you need to complete a certain number of projects?  Achieve $X in savings?
    Typically yes. Due to the to learn-through-application approach and the dollar requirements associated with most BB projects. And it will differ from company to company.  However, I’ve seen those who try to take their “shining stars” from the BB training and go for Master after completing one project.  I would not recommend this.  First efforts and projects often focus on the lower hanging fruit and the “Just Fix It” issues and don’t allow for much in the application of DOE and the more advanced tools.  A Master should know the tools without fail – not only through class and the catapult, but applied in several projects.  I would use knowledge and application as the criteria.  I would not recommend a system of “Complete X number of projects and save a gazillion dollars and you’ll be our next MBB.”  There is much more required.
    2.  Mentor a specific number of BBs?  GBs?
    Mentor GBs most definitely.  The BBs should be left to the MBBs if you follow the hierarchy.  I would have the MBB progressively mentor the BBs in their GB training and development.  Those who show promise can be mentored and trained further in preparation to become a MBB.  This requires a close working and mentoring relationship between the BBs and MBBs.
    3. Training – Completed DFSS?  Be able to run training courses?
    It wouldn’t hurt, at least to be familiar with it: transfer functions, Monte Carlo simulation, parameter and tolerance design are important to understand.  Remember that when you hit the barrier of diminishing returns with DMAIC, the avenue to further improvement is through reengineering and DFSS.
    They most definitely must know how to run an effective presentation and training session and be able to deliver to diverse audiences.  Presentation skills are a must.  Being able to gauge an audience and present accordingly is crucial.
    4.  Score a certain level on a BB skills assessment?
    I would test them for both knowledge and application.  This can be done by the MBB / mentor on a consistent basis throughout their development.  If properly mentored through their development, there will be no surprises.
    In addition to the presentation skills requirement, they need outstanding project management and leadership skills (with a good knowledge of critical path).  They must understand the differences between the team leader and the team facilitator roles, be able to switch between them with ease and comfort and know when to use which.  Depending on your organization, they will need to feel comfortable working with senior management and executives as well as shop floor supervisors and operators.  Understanding how to get through the early stages of team work, identifying and eliminating barriers (in conjunction with the Champion) and moving the team(s) forward are critical skills.
    A good dose of marketing savvy wouldn’t hurt, either, as part of their job is selling the “sizzle” along with the “steak” of Lean and Six Sigma.  Knowing how to do the “political two-step” (sorry, but it does get that way and they need to be able to deal with it) and knowing how to avoid the “land mines” within the organization are also necessary.

    0
    #84528

    Charles H
    Participant

    SInce this is on topic, Air Academy Associates offers an MBB /Train the Trainer certification course:  http://www.airacad.com

    0
    #84526

    Charles H
    Participant

    Dr. Deming didn’t need permission to do his job because he had already established a link directly to the Top Management of his clients. His approach to working with clients is defined in Out Of The Crisis in his Advice to Consultants.  If Dr. Deming didn’t have access to go anywhere and do anything he felt necessary, he’d walk and not look back.  As he would say, “New knowledge only comes into an organization from the outside, and only by invivation.”  This invitation could only come from top management.  Thus his first point in his “Advice to Consultants and Companies” (OOC pg 472, 1986 reprint):  “The invitation to work with a company must come from top management.”  Once the invitation was extended, he defined the things a company must do in order for him to work with them.
    In point four of his advise, he makes it clear that he would go wherever needed, whenever needed throughout the company as his judgement dictated. No need for permission as he had already defined it and made top management responsible for supporting and leading the effort.
    In Figure 61 of OOC, he datails his organizational strucuture necessary for success.  Note the link of the “Leadership in Statictical Knowledge” to the top management and the dotted lines to the rest of the organization.
    If memory serves me, and please correct me if I’m wrong, when Dr. Deming first went to Japan in the early ’50s, he required the top management of Japanese companies to attend.  “They came, they learned”
    As for anecdotal stories (Emptor) – well – they do have their place.  And remember, there are more than one way to “skin a cat” (apologies to PETA and BillyBob’s possums!).  In my experience, you are correct that it is much easier with the support and commitment of top management – but it can be done and benefit received by the Ninja approach: assess targets of opportunity and go do it in a “stealth” mode.  You may have to get permission for resources for improvement (and I agree it will be necessary for the common causes – not necessarily so for the removal of special cause variation), but if you have done the job well, the control charts will tell the story.  Find your pockets of acceptance and go there.  Plant the seed and make it grow.
    I will take issue with the engineers are responsible, but I may be misreading your intent, Mike.  The control charts should be in the hands of the operators and front line supervision.  The engineers can help in application and analysis, but the charts belong to the individual operators.  They should not be shown to top management – allows for micro-management, tampering and meddling.
    Charles H

    0
    #84347

    Charles H
    Participant

    Sorry – forgot to add CTQ = Critical To Quality and you can find more info at the following link.https://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Critical_To_Quality_-_CTQ-216.htmRegards,Charles H

    0
    #84346

    Charles H
    Participant

    SIPOC = Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer. Popularized by Peter Scholte in his books.  You can find more info via this link: https://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c010429a.asp
    For the C&E Diagram, check my previous post from today on Ishikawa C&E Diagrams.  There is a link in the post that will give you more information.
    Best wishes,
    Charles H

    0
    #84343

    Charles H
    Participant

    Hope this helps.  Got it from the site listed below.
    Charles H
     
    Cause & Effect Diagram
    The cause & effect diagram is the brainchild of Kaoru Ishikawa, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process became one of the founding fathers of modern management. 
    http://www.skymark.com/resources/tools/cause.asp

    0
    #84037

    Charles H
    Participant

    Gary, Gabriel, Stan
    Does anyone out there really go after individual occurences of common cause variation?  Reread the quote and you will see this is what Deming was referring to.  If you do go after single occurences, you are wasting your money and you are looking at the control chart through a microscope.  You are guilty of “The Funnel Experiment” and you may actually induce variation, rather than limit it.  I believe it more likely that once you have a process in control, you look at common cause variation in a way that allows you to see the whole and reduce it in a way that improves the process and the system – what Deming would call optimization.  If not – “Off we go to the Milky Way!”

    0
    #84026

    Charles H
    Participant

    This is too funny.  I had a long reply ready to send to Gary at it got lost when I went to check some documentation.  Gary – I will respond after I recover and redo the post  :-) 
    Ya know – do we have a failure mode identified with the website? 

    0
    #84025

    Charles H
    Participant

    Gabriel,
    The risk is that by using your analogy, you put the us into the Probability Approach Box that Neave and Wheeler caution us about.  And it is a complete misrepresentation of the control chart.
    Charles H.

    0
    #84008

    Charles H
    Participant

    Eileen,
    Thanks for your words of support.  I know I may be pushing a boulder up a steep incline, but hey – it’s my job.  Never give up, always push forward, and always try to educate.  Dr. Deming’s lament that “there was no one to teach them” does not ring true anymore, and I know there are those who will never listen or learn.  But, as the good Doctor might observe, if we can reach only one person, the effort is well worth it.
    Charles H.

    0
    #83985

    Charles H
    Participant

    Hey Gabriel:
    You hit the nail on the head.  When it’s all over and done with, it comes down to what gives you value and what doesn’t in the real world.  My only caution is, that in ignoring the intent and details of the tools (the underlying statistical foundations), we take the risk of misapplying the tool, getting erroneous information, thus we make an erroneous decision based upon the data – and “off we go to the Milky Way”.  I have seen this happen to practitioners numerous times in my journey.  We can only make the determination of what is and is not significant to our given situation based upon a good understanding of the tools and their limitations.  I think we would be in agreement on this point?
    Charles H.

    0
    #83982

    Charles H
    Participant

    John,
    As you know, there are many variables associated with this process.  From your reply, I assume that the scrap is due to overgrind of the base material.  Is this true?  What kind of tolerances are we dealing with?  What is the base / substrate material you are coating?  Aluminum, steel . . .?  What other means of coating removal has the supplier tried, if any?  Is the process of coating removal manual or autonomated?  Is the part configuration simple or complex? Of the parts you receive that are not scrapped, does the coating adhere properly and evenly.  Are there any coating issues that result from poor surface preparation by the supplier?
    We may find this easier to go through our emails on this one.  If you agree, email me at: [email protected] and we can get into this in greater detail.
    Best always,
    Charles H.

    0
    #83978

    Charles H
    Participant

    Thanks for your kind words, Jamie.  I sense that you have adopted life-long learning as part of your personal continual improvement philosophy.  Bravo!  I applaud your approach –  investigate, read, learn – and then reach your own conclusions on the issues.  The method of a true Six Sigma professional.  Don’t take the “experts” word for it – seek profound knowledge and understanding.  We need assumption challengers out there!  Your search will serve you well.
    As we have seen in this thread, there are two camps involved in this discussion – those that believe as Deming and Shewhart prescribe (don’t associate probabilities and hypothesis tests with control charts), and those that believe differently.  My belief is that many posting to this thread are reacting based on assumptions and intuition, not upon their own investigation, knowledge and understanding.  All one can ask is that we look at the facts, read and understand the “experts,” then decide for ourselves.  [By the way – is it just my perception or is there a general lack of knowledge and/or an aversion in the Six Sigma community towards Dr. Deming’s and Shewhart’s teachings?] 
    I do not find the analogies used in this discussion to be compelling.  Analogies are great for getting a point across, but analogies are nothing more than a “resemblance in some particulars between things, otherwise unlike.”  I find Gabriel’s analogy, good as it may be on the surface, to be of little value in this discussion.  An analogy is not a good substitute for an accurate and precise statistical discussion, based upon data and facts.  This is not a slam on Gabriel – I find his posts to be appropriate and well thought out (thanks Gabriel – good stuff).
    Lastly, my thanks to Jim for raising this thread.  I know you’ve taken a lot of hits, Jim.  You put yourself out there on point and I gotta respect that – aside from whether we agree or disagree on the finer points.  :-)  Good job!
    Best to all,
    Charles H.
     
     

    0
    #83931

    Charles H
    Participant

    Stan:
    My experience has been that Dr. Deming and Dr. Shewhart were both very accurate and precise in the language they used.  They did not say “Type I and Type II Error” for a reason.  Now, why do you think that is?  Was it a mistake on their part – careless use of language? Or were they trying to make an important distinction?
    Charles H.

    0
    #83908

    Charles H
    Participant

    This paper may help.
    http://www.stochos.com/qcrep0698.pdf

    0
    #83897

    Charles H
    Participant

    Application with knowledge provides value.
    Application without knowledge is guessing.
    I provided information and sources.  You provide analogies without information or sources. Insist if you must – but you are wrong.  Dr. Shewhart and Deming would tell you “don’t mess with it – it works.”  They wrote the book – so, with all repsect to you, Gabriel, I’ll listen to them.
    Regardless of whether I agree with you, your posts always add to the discussion. Thanks for your contributions to the forum. 
    Charles H

    0
    #83896

    Charles H
    Participant

    MK:
    Thanks for your wonderful response to my inquiry.  I truly appreciate it.
     
    Charles H

    0
    #83880

    Charles H
    Participant

    mk:
    Thanks for your post.  I am interested in your view of the acceptance levels at the senior management, middle / front line supervision, and worker levels (exempt and non-exempt).  Were there any differences?  What was the overall “feeling” of Six Sigma within the workforce?
    I’m also interested in your view of how the incentives program enabled willing acceptance.  Was there competition for projects and getting the bonus or did people look for win / win situations and opportunities for sharing of knowledge, lessons learned, ideas, etc.?
    Thanks much!
    Charles H.

    0
    #83877

    Charles H
    Participant

    Correct Stan – though they have their basis in probabilites, there are no  probabilities associated with control limits or the reason for Shewhart choosing +/-3 standard deviations – a potentialy subtle but very important distinction.  He did so because it was the most economic location for them, limiting the possibilities of making mistakes 1 and 2 and their subsequent economic impacts.
    Charles H.
     

    0
    #83876

    Charles H
    Participant

    >If your answer is reject the null then you conclude the process has changed.<
    In rereading Jamie’s post, I noted this statement which slipped past me.  This is not correct.  You cannot conclude the process has changed based upon an out of control condition.  All you can do is ask if the process had changed and that you need to investigate and determine the root cause, if one is present.  False alarms on control charts do happen – even in the Red Beads Experiment – which is a very controled and stable process.
    Charles H.

    0
    #83873

    Charles H
    Participant

    Dr. Deming talks about this in his last book, The New Economics, on pages 176 – 177.   “It is wrong (misuse of the meaning of a control chart) to suppose that there is some ascertainable probablility that either of these false signals will occur.  We can only say that the risk to incur either false signal is very small. (Some textbooks on the statistical control of quality lead the reader astray on this point.)
    It is a mistake to suppose that the control chart furnished a test of significance – that a point beyond a control limit is ‘significant.'” 
    The false signals refer to the two types of mistakes that can be made with control chart analysis, as defined by Shewhart (page 174);
    “Mistake 1: To react to an outcome as if it came from a special cause, when actually it came from common cause variation.”
    “Mistake 2: To treat an outcome as if it came from common causes of variation, when actually it came from a special cause.”
    Went looking for my copy of Out of the Crisis for further definition on the topic, but can’t find it (what I get for moving over the holidays).
    In reading Deming, one will note he never uses the term “probability” associated with control charts.  He will say it is “predicatable” if it is stable and in control, but there are no probabilities associated with it.
    Hope this helps the discussion.
    Charles H.

    0
    #83850

    Charles H
    Participant

    Eileen:
    Never like to see someone stand alone when they are right.  Hypothesis testing and probabilities have absolutely zero, zilch, nada to do with control charting.
    Charles H.

    0
    #83834

    Charles H
    Participant

    John,
    Are you using APS or VPS/LPPS?  What are the failure modes requiring material rework / scrap?
    Charles H

    0
    #83549

    Charles H
    Participant

    The Knowledge Based Management book is published and  available through Air Academy Associates, at: http://www.airacad.com. 
    Charles H

    0
    #83460

    Charles H
    Participant

    Actually, Lean got its start in Japan at Toyota around 1949 (Ohno and Shingo)and continued its development at Toyota through about 1975, well before TQM’s advent.
    TQM was origianlly developed out of the US Navy in the mid 80’s as they tried to integrate Juran, Crosby, Deming, et al and give it a name they believed captured their intent, thus Total Quality Management.  It was further pushed by the Department of Defense in 1989 with the Mandate for Implementation (never got out of the draft version) by Under Secretary for Defense, Don Atwood.  (Deming never ackowledged he knew anything about “TQM” and would get very upset when asked about it).
    Six Sigma was being developed at Motorola in the mid to late 80s, pretty much at the same time as TQM and while the rest of the world was “discovering” Lean.
    So, I think the assertion that Lean and Six Sigma were developed out of TQM is not correct.

    0
    #83446

    Charles H
    Participant

    Let me try it this way. 
    Say you use the 1 (low), 2 (moderate), 3 (high) relationship weighting scale.  One CTQ on the QFD matrix has 12 low relationships identified, so it gets a score of 12 (12 x 1 = 12).  Another CTQ has two high and one moderate relationship, getting a score of 8 (2 x 3 + 2 = 8).  In this case, one would more likely pay attention to the CTQ with a score of 12 and may neglect the lower scoring CTQ, though it may be of much greater importance to the customer, overall. 
    Using the 1, 3, 9 system, the scores would be 12 (12 x 1 = 12) and 21 (2 x 9 + 3 = 21), respectively, thus giving the CTQ that is of a higher importance to the customer a more appropriate weighting in the QFD matrix.  Like I said, it helps to more dramatically differentiate the highs from the lows.

    0
    #83363

    Charles H
    Participant

    They are done this way so that the high priority items drive the weighting and makes it easier to differentiate the low and medium from high priority CTQs.
     
    Charles H.

    0
    #82569

    Charles H
    Participant

    Paul:
    You might want to take a look at http://sigmazone.com/.  I have used their software extensively and have been totally satisfied.  The site provides fully functioanl “test drive” software which you can download at the site.
    Hope this helps.
    Charles H.

    0
    #82332

    Charles H
    Participant

    You can learn about OEE calculations and considerations affecting OEE at this website.  Hope this helps.
    Charles H.
    http://www.oee.com/pdf/oee_cheat_sheet.pdf

    0
    #81641

    Charles H
    Participant

    Seems a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) could be used here?
    Charles H

    0
    #81557

    Charles H
    Participant

    Alex:
     
    You can read the history of Six Sigma by clicking on the “New to Six Sigma?” link on the left hand side of the iSixSigma home page.
    Best regards and Happy Holidays!
    Charles H.

    0
    #81463

    Charles H
    Participant

    I think it is important to remember that you can go broke achieving six sigma on all processes.  There are diminishing returns.  Often times, with continual improvement, we encounter a barrier around the 4 to 5 sigma level, where further improvement in sigma level will cost more than it is worth.  We then have a decision to make.  Do we live with what we have or take a reengineering approach wherein we use DFSS and other reengineering tools to come up with completely new processes / products?  Customer requirements, market conditions and cost/benefit analysis will determine our choice.  Not all processes can or should be at a six sigma level. 
    Charles H.

    0
    #81341

    Charles H
    Participant

    >Boeing? Lean?  Do you think George Bush is a liberal?
     
    Boeing may not be “lean”,  but they have begun the journey and they have made some significant improvements.  Whether their experience is good or bad, we can learn from them, if we maintain an open an engaged mind.  After all, isn’t that what we’re here for?
    Have a great day!
    Charles H

    0
    #81317

    Charles H
    Participant

    >To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.You know – I bet there were tons of people who would have supported the notion – and many may even have written books to about it – that Motorola, GE, Home Depot . . . you name it, and their processes were “different.”  R&D people think they are “different.”  Pharmacueticals may think they are “different.”  There are always those that believe being “different” means that they cannot apply the various tools of improvement to their processes.  I am always disheartened when I hear this from Six Sigma / Lean Professionals.May I say, to those that believe you are”different,” SO WHAT?  If no one in your business / profession has applied the tools . . . FANTASTIC!  What a competitve edge that is being offered up to you and your company.  Give me this situation anytime!Our job, as practitioners, is to find ways to integrate the tools we have learned with our knowledge of the organization, and the needs of our customers and the company.  This involves a struggle to understand and apply (if you’re not struggling, you’re not applying!).  I often caution my clients about their desire for Case Studies: they are typically used to find a short-cut or a template of how others have applied the tools.  There are no templates or short-cuts.  Each business, each organization within a business, is different and requires its own approach.  That’s why we’re here – to learn the tools and then to integrate our knowledge of the business and organization to apply the tools and methods as needed, in a way that makes sense for our situation.So please, when others say that “a process is a process” and such, rather than classify the discourse as “banalities,” maybe it is time to open our horizons, challenge our assumptions – BE A BLACK BELT ! – and look for ways to overcome, to adapt and to integrate.  That’s our job.Charles H.

    0
    #62566

    Charles H
    Participant

    >To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.To quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.  There is a very good description in “The Mythical Man-Month” of Frederic P. Brooks describing whu SW development is actually different. it would do a load of good to have an informed discussion on this topic somewhere – until now all i could find was banalities as above.You know – I bet there were tons of people who would have supported the notion – and many may even have written books to about it – that Motorola, GE, Home Depot . . . you name it, and their processes were “different.”  R&D people think they are “different.”  Pharmacueticals may think they are “different.”  There are always those that believe being “different” means that they cannot apply the various tools of improvement to their processes.  I am always disheartened when I hear this from Six Sigma / Lean Professionals.May I say, to those that believe you are”different,” SO WHAT?  If no one in your business / profession has applied the tools . . . FANTASTIC!  What a competitve edge that is being offered up to you and your company.  Give me this situation anytime!Our job, as practitioners, is to find ways to integrate the tools we have learned with our knowledge of the organization, and the needs of our customers and the company.  This involves a struggle to understand and apply (if you’re not struggling, you’re not applying!).  I often caution my clients about their desire for Case Studies: they are typically used to find a short-cut or a template of how others have applied the tools.  There are no templates or short-cuts.  Each business, each organization within a business, is different and requires its own approach.  That’s why we’re here – to learn the tools and then to integrate our knowledge of the business and organization to apply the tools and methods as needed, in a way that makes sense for our situation.So please, when others say that “a process is a process” and such, rather than classify the discourse as “banalities,” maybe it is time to open our horizons, challenge our assumptions – BE A BLACK BELT ! – and look for ways to overcome, to adapt and to integrate.  That’s our job.Charles H.

    0
    #81314

    Charles H
    Participant

    Arthur,
    No worries – I got a good laugh out of it!  We gotta have some fun – that’s what it”s all about!  Here’s an interesting question if I dare – oh, what the heck?  Here goes.
    Which is more “fun” and why?  The Lean or Six Sigma tools sets?  Personally, I enjoy both but really enjoy a good Kaizen Blitz.  Lots of action working with cross functional teams where the “rubber meets the road” and you have solid fixes in place in a short time frame.  Any body else have any thoughts?
    Best to all,
    Charles H

    0
    #81306

    Charles H
    Participant

    “Cellular Cell” refers to process Cell Design / Layout.  Many processes are set up in hap-hazard or linear layouts.  Cellular Design helps to optimize process flow and multi-tasking of workers.  It is critical to the implementation of one-piece-flow, JIT and Kanban.  A good book on the topic is from Productivity Press:  “Shopfloor Series:  Cellular Manufacturing – one piece flow for workstations”
    Answering the other posted question about cell manufacturing and automotive . . . yes, I have seen cell design work well within the automotive industry – after all, Lean was created at Toyota! 
    A great example of Lean applied to the old “smokestack” industries is the 737 line at Boeing and their “moving line.”  Actually, nothing new – this was applied to aircarft manufacturing back in WWII, but the lessons learned from Toyota have been applied as well.  You can read about the “moving line” at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/initiatives/lean/movingline.html.  The additional links at this site give some pretty good info on Boeing’s lean implementation.
    Hope this helps.
    Charles H

    0
    #81299

    Charles H
    Participant

    TOC = Theory of Constraints, popularized by Eliyahu Goldratt in “Critical Chain” and “The Goal

    0
    #81197

    Charles H
    Participant

    Jincy,
    No problem – always glad to help.  At this point, I can answer your question about the “essentials” in general terms: Six Sigma overview (why, what, how, etc.), understanding of variation (common and special causes), roles and responsibilities – the typical high level, get started stuff.  However, I believe you are looking for something beyond the general answers.  Would it be okay if we took this offline for a brief discussion so I can get a better feel for your company’s current status (use of tools and the culture)?  Would also like to briefly discuss your VED.  From this, we can make the best determination of where and how you can start your initiative in a more detailed manner.  After our offline discussion, we can let the forum know what was determined, so that we close the loop with the discussion thread.
    If this sounds like a good approach, please contact me at [email protected].  If not, we can do it through the Forum.
    Charles H

    0
    #81172

    Charles H
    Participant

    Jincy:
    Yes, there are consulting firms that will work with you to develop a customized rollout and materials for you and your organization on a pay-as-you-go basis.  This is a very valid approach, building on some initial basic SPC and Lean tools with a focus on improving the JDIs.  As the processes are improved and stabilized, additional tools sets can be learned and applied on a JIT basis to reduce the sources of process common cause variation and suboptimization.  My firm has done this successfully several times, when working with smaller organizations.
    It would appear that John and his company may have had a bad experience with a consulting firm.  There are many reasons that justify having a consulting firm work with you.  Maybe the most basic is that a BB typically does not have copyright control over a comprehensive set of materials nor do they possess the necessary knowledge of strategic deployment of Lean Six Sigma.  My experience has been that  BBs hired to create and roll out the deployment of Six Sigma typically do not have the “horsepower” nor the respect of senior management necessary for a successful deployment.  Our firm has been hired numerous times to recover a poorly designed and implemented Six Sigma initiative – as the result of both substandard consulting and “home grown” efforts by hired BBs.  this type of intervention is extremely costly in terms of time, monies, and internal support for the initiative.
    Either way you go – hiring a BB or a consulting firm – do your homework carefully.  Do not go into this with a “low cost bidder” mentality, if you want this to be successful. Recovering a bad rollout is not always possible, so do it right the first time and save yourself a lot of time, money and headaches in the future.
    Charles H

    0
    #81158

    Charles H
    Participant

    The source for the following is: Understanding Industrial Designed Experiments, 4th Edition, Schmidt/Launsby, Air Academy Press
    k = number of factors
    q = size of fraction         q = 1 (1/2 fraction)  q = 2 (1/4 fraction)
     
    Resolutions:
    Res V: main effects OK (aliased with 4-way interactions)   2-way interactions OK (aliased with 3 way interactions)
    Res IV: main effects OK (aliased with 3-way interactions)  some (or all) 2-way interactions aliased with other 2-ways
    Res III: some (or all) main effects alieased with 2-way interactions.
    A 2^7-3 will have 16 runs, n reps = 3

    0
    #80984

    Charles H
    Participant

    Anything by Shigeo Shingo (Productivity, Inc.)
    After re-reading my previous post, this looks like I am recommending a book by Shigeo Shingo, titled “Anything.”  This is not the case.  My recommendation is to read any book written by Shigeo Shingo.  Sorry for any confusion.
    Charles H

    0
    #80856

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mandy:
    Six Sigma can be applied to passenger related processes as well as to the maintenance / technical processes. 
    Some good places to benchmark may be the Hotel industry (Carlton Ritz), Call Centers, other “people process” industry benchmarks.  You can measure waiting time (in line at the ticket counters, on the phone for reservations), reservation / ticketing errors, data entry mistakes / omissions, customer satisfaction survey data . . .  the possibilities are enormous.  The obvious benchmark for process SOPs and the reduction of variation in the airline industry would be Southwest.  Being a part of the aviation industry for many years (aircraft manufacturing and assembly), I have studied them extensively. Much of what they have accomplished relates directly to their ability to reduce variation in their processes and to strongly identifiy their market segment.  By doing so, they have the lowest cost per available seat mile in the industry.  They are one of the few who are still healthy and don’t require any governement subsudies to keep flying.
    Short answer – Six Sigma definitely applies to passenger processes  – GO FOR IT!  Contact me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this off line.  Hope this helps.
    Charles

    0
Viewing 70 posts - 1 through 70 (of 70 total)