[Mike Smith]

Do what Bill Smith (the founder of six sigma) himself suggested :
Broaden the spec limits !
It allows you get any level of defects you want !!
Sounds ridiculous but read Bill Smith’s IEEE paper …

0

[Mike Smith]

Mike
Sorry for delay in responding. I was out.  The MBB I originally got this from said just what you have said.
So at this point I can either add a citation and/or link or take it down.
What would you prefer?
Mike Smith

0

[Mike Smith]

Gary
I would if it was, but it is not
If you have one that looks exactly like mine which is a derivative of a one used by the folks that taught me Six Sigma, then someone took it from mine. The  non parametric details and a couple notes were added by me. And I had an ok from them to use.
Something like hypothesis testing is practically public domain. A specific exact form of something like this that is copywrited works for that specific form/format. Once you add to it it is a derivative work.
If you can show me how this came from yours I’d be glad to add a citation and a link. As it stands it is not a copywrite infringement.
If yours is better, I’ll take mine down and put yours up with a link.
Mike

0

[Mike Smith]

Mr. Bhadrayya
I would alos like a copy
 
Thanks
 
Mike

0

[Mike Smith]

We have a call monitoring process for our inbound customer service call center.
We have 26 items broken into 3 sections, Call management, Communication and Complete & Accurate information.
We did a gauge R&R with 10 appraisers on 5 calls -twice.
The GR&R result was 15% on all within appraisers and 15% for all appraisers vs. standard. Some questions were a bit better than others, some appraisers were a bit better than others, questions that were rated ok/not ok were not better than those rated with ok/in between/not ok, so the upshot is the process does not work.
It is not working at all. If you want a copy of the mpj send me a request t [email protected]

0

[Mike Smith]

Nayeem
We have a program (in our Services company) with just 2 full time BB and 1 MBB. Everyone else learns 6S and then is expected (after the first projects) to apply what they know to their regular jobs. They are also “available” to work on 1 or 2 more projects each year. We give lots of public recognition to all involved in the 6S effort.
Those GB and BB have gotten higher raises because of their efforts-based on the results. They also seem to be promoted at a higher rate than others.
Additionallly, the GB get a$2k bonus once they are certified and the BB get $3k in recognition of the ammount of effort it takes to larn the 6S methodology, and do your first project while keeping up much of one’s regul;ar job.
Afterwards they seem to like being asked to work on COPQ problems and the attention that goes along with solving a major problem.

0

[Mike Smith]

Sean
 
We are measuring the ROI and for the first year it was  2:1(that included the cost of an expensive ! consultant. We expect the second year’s ROI to be 5or 6:1 in a service environment.
The other thing we are measuring is Six Sigma tool use. We did a random sample survey of all employees and asked if they used Six Sigma tools, were on a team that used them or knew a co-worker that used them. After a year we are going to ask the same people the same qiestions. If the Six Sigma tool use Company wide has increased we will certainly report that. If it has not, then it will be a problem to solve.

0

[Mike Smith]

Alee
The data for a control chart does not have to be normal.
As Dr. Donald Wheeler says in his book Understanding Variation, SPC Press, (p24)(He uses process behavior chart instead of the term control chart):
By characterizing the extent of routine variation, the limits on a process behavior chart allow you to differentiate between routine variation and exceptional variation. If, over a reasonably long time, all of the points fall within the limitsof a process behavior chart, and if the points are well-behaved, then the process can be said to display nothing but routine variation. When this happens the process can be thought of as being predictable within those limits, and it is reasonable to expect that, unless something is changed, it will continue to operate this way in the future.Thus, the limits on a process behavior chart allow you to characterize the behavior of your process as predictable or unpredictable, and define how much routine variation you should expect in the future.

0

[Mike Smith]

We are a Professional Services Company. We use the following to help process owners develop a problem statement.
Problem Statements need the following to be most understandable to those the problem is being described to AND for whomever will be working on the project.
 

A problem statement should clearly and specifically state what is wrong—the effect of the unknown cause.
Measures of the problem/effect should be available to estimate problem magnitude and to serve as a basis for evaluating improvements. (If there are no measures, they will have to be developed.)
The problem statement includes a comparison of the actual state with the desired state, if possible.
The “pain” of the problem’s effects on the customer is included.
 
We also will need to articulate a business case for when the Project Selection Team evaluates projects to shortlist the ones with the highest priority and largest impact for approval by the Business Operating team.
 
For the Business case we need to know:
 

Why is the project worth doing? Will it grow revenue, help retain business, provide cost savings, or improve productivity? And
Why is it important to do it now?
What are the consequences of not doing the project?
How much will the Company benefit from the project? What are the important indirect or direct bottom line impacts expected?
 

0

[Mike Smith]

Tracy
We are looking at the possiblility of using “secret shoppers”. This way the calls in have specific correct answers and then we know whether the CSR answers are complete and accurate.

0

[Mike Smith]

Sumit
What you say is the right way to establish a measuring process. The reality is it doesn’t always work that way. our process was established without looking at CTQs or getting clear operational definitions.
That said, then we were able (a year after the monitoring was established) to use the Guage R&R and the Gauge results have led management to rethink what they want to do and how to do it since the current process is not working
 

0

[Mike Smith]

Sumit
 
For that I need your email address

0

[Mike Smith]

Sumit
I believe the Gauge R&R shows it failed.  The 15% for each means 15% agreement not 15% variation.  And the overall Kappa Statistic is .47.
The Kappa is the ratio of the proportion of times the appaisers did agree to the proportion of times the appraisers could agree.
Kappa Statistics (from Minitab)   If you have a known standard for each rating, you can assess the correctness of all appraisers’ ratings compared to the known standard.If Kappa = 1, then there is perfect agreement. If Kappa = 0, then there is no agreement. The higher the value of Kappa, the stronger the agreement. Negative values occur when agreement is weaker than expected by chance, but this rarely happens. Depending on the application, Kappa less than 0.7 indicates that your measurement system needs improvement. Kappa values greater than 0.9 are considered excellent.
Mike

0

[Mike Smith]

We have a call monitoring process for our inbound customer service call center.
We have 26 items broken into 3 sections, Call management, Communication and Complete & Accurate information.
We did a gauge R&R with 10 appraisers on 5 calls -twice.
The GR&R result was 15% on all within appraisers and 15% for all appraisers vs. standard. Some questions were a bit better than others, some appraisers were a bit better than others, questions that were rated ok/not ok were not better than those rated with ok/in between/not ok, so the upshot is the process does not work.
It is not working at all. If you want a copy of the mpj send me a request t [email protected]
Does anyone have a quality call monitoring process that has passed a GR&R. if so I would be interested. plus I would like to know hoiw you got all the appraisers to haer the calls the same way.

0

[Mike Smith]

The following are guidelines we have used for candidate selection.
The Candidate is someone who has a work history that shows he or she has many of the following characteristics:
 
q       Welcomes change and new ideas
q       Receptive to and uses feedback
q       Self-motivated (Doesn’t need reminders)
q       Someone who WANTS to be accountable for work output
q       Analytical in approaching problems
q       Able to work well with others
q       One who does not give up easily (perseveres)
q       Establishes standards and metrics around whatever tasks she/he is involved with
q       Willing to commit to extra effort (Does what it takes)
q       Naturally looks for improvements
q       Smart / intelligent
q       Able to work independently
q       Able to work on multiple tasks without sacrificing any
q       Some previous knowledge in group dynamics
q       Some facility with math
 
Level of the candidate is not an issue-all levels may be successful GB.
It is best if the Project is in the GB’s functional area.
 

0

[Mike Smith]

As my Green Belt project I looked at time to fill open positions.
We were able to reduce the time to fill by 37% which was “worth” 4000+ workdays for new hires that would not have been available if we were filling jobs at the old rate.
Mike Smith
[email protected]

0

[Author]

Posts