iSixSigma

Orlando

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 42 posts - 1 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #159197

    Orlando
    Participant

    Also its important not to forget that its impportant to understand the CTC.
    For example lest take the cel phones, most of the cel phones user used their cel phone no more than two years. The reason? many other brand new products available waiting for us to make an upgrade which most of the times happend, we do the upgrade!!.
    so from customer perspective if you buy a cel phone and works ok within the period of time you are going to used it (ltes said 2 years) you wont be able to see the defects that happend to that phone 6 months later (on month 30). Now maybe the company has a lot of rework and defects within their process (no six sigma) but they deliver a good product from customer perspective.
     

    0
    #159196

    Orlando
    Participant

    Stan,
    I agree, what I meant is that from the customer perspective (final user) there is a lot of products that may be six sigma, but NOT form a company process perspective.
    I agree Boeing has never deliver a defect free plane, however from the passanger perspective it seems a six sigma product,
    another example a TV that can be in place 10 years or more, a microwave oven same case, etc.
    Many times you throw away a product that actually never fails, however you update with the latest one, in that perspective we as a customers got a defect free product.
     

    0
    #159127

    Orlando
    Participant

    from customer perspective there is many products on the market that are six sigma, like for example airplane or jet turbines, many cel phones (particulary Nokia), 
    however I am not sure if within a company there is a Six Sigma process, as a process itself.
     
     

    0
    #111055

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Nikunj
    I looked all over my garage and I can’t find the book but I’ll know I’ll find it later when I won’t be looking for it.  Let me try and remember why the author made that statement.
    I believe the author was refering to analysis of covariance where the features of analysis of variance and regression are combined.  It can be used for observational studies or design experiments.  Qualitative factors as well as quantitative factors can be used together.  If only quantiative factors are used, then we have regression.  If only qualitative factors are used, then we have regression with Indicator (dummy) factors.  His statement that the reason analysis of variance was even taught was because it was much easier to understand.  Oh well.  
    I’ll try to organize my statistical books in the near future and find that damn thing.

    0
    #110956

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Nikunj
      I read somewhere awhile back and I come to agree that Regression does everything a DOE do plus more.  The writer went on to explain that the reason DOE is taught was because it was much easier to understand than Regression.  I’ll find that book if it’s still in my garage.
    Think about it. 

    0
    #110652

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Phil
    Tell us all about it.  What is it you find troubling about Six Sigma
    orlando

    0
    #107978

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    Sooo it was Ralph Ponce de Leon  who got Mike into Wiggihorns organization.  Gee, if Ralph didn’t get so damn impressed with that academic jargon and instead push someone who actually did his learning and work on the floor perhaps Motorola wouldn’t have falling so hard and so fast in loosing their quality edge.
     

    0
    #107959

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi RubberDude
    I’m sorry I’m just caught up in this political discourse that anytime the RNC puts out some BS Iand someone repeats it I get uptight.
    Sorry
     

    0
    #107939

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi RubberDude
    Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.  He was being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN and he mentioned that he introduced legislation to help create a mechanism in this country for the internet to thrive.  A couple of days later Newt Gingrich agreed with him that he was instrumental in that effort and most lalmakers agreed too.  It wasn’t until the RNC got together and put the word out to their dominions to belittle Al Gore about that statement and the rest is history.  So please make sure when you say something on this Forum that it has some basis in fact.

    0
    #107928

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    Your right about the 50 to 100 others working their butts off during the same time period and Mario was just one of them.  I don’t think I ever said Mario’s was the fellow who invented Six Sigma.  Although sometimes I come across like that when I say that he was the most influential person who brought the initiatrive to fruition, especially in Motorola Semiconductor. 
    What I tried to do is give some perspective on what was happening at that crucial early period.  I only get involved in these discussions when  I hear someone write that Mikel Harry created it all and did this and did that.  Like I mentioned before, I don’t want to take anything away from all the pioneers in this enterprise.  I just don’t like to see everybody pay homage to just one person when in reality Six Sigma was a creation of a small group within the Motorola organization and cheif among them was Mario Perez-Wilson. 
    The documents listed on Mario’s WEB page is a personal history that includes letters of praise from hugher ups within the Semiconductor Sector.  Mikel Harry also had memos praisiing his effort but Mikel’s praises are due in part on material he wrote about the theoritical underpinnings of Six Sigma.  I read practically all his material and I was impressed.  But it didn’t get me off my butt to do anything because it didn’t show me what to do first, what to do second etc..  Mario’s material was aimed at the application aspects.  Mario defined how to do and how one can delivery Six Sigma to the manufacturing area.
    I brought to the Forum a memo I found and is listed on Mario’s WEB page in which Dr. Zinkgraf indicated he was using Mario’s material to teach a class in Sequin.  The reason I put this memo on the Forum was because someone was debating about where and when Zinkgraf was with Allied Signal and he was with Mikel Harry’s organization and they brought it to Allied Signal etc.  I wanted to show that Zinkgraf was using Mario’s material in 1990 and when he was working for Mikel it was in 1993.  All this material was re-worked and re-worked and nobody ever mentioned where did this material originate.
    By the way I don’t know how Mikel Harry got to head the Six Sigma Institute in Schaumberg but I do know that Bill Wigginhorn who was the V.P. in charge of Motorola University dismissed Mikel because he failed to deliver.  After that episode Mikel went to work for a firm in Europe   This all took place about 1993 and in the same year Zinkgraf and Harry worked together.

    0
    #107863

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Xosu
    If you want to obtain information on Six Sigma and Motorola and also see how Six Sigma began in Motorola,  just check out the following site.
    http://www.ascsixsigma.com
    There you’ll find everything you need.

    0
    #107783

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Allied Signal Manager
    Some people on this Forum know me because everytime someone starts talking about the beginnings of Six Sigma I interupt and try to give them a clear picture of what the beginnings looked like.  Well anyway I won’t go through the whole debate I had on this forum but I want to post an interesting FAX sent to Mario Perez-Wilsons organization dated August 7, 1990.  My wife keeps telling me to clean the garage and throw out those Motorola papaers but I keep telling her than I want to write a historical account of Six Sigma.
    The FAX was sent from Stephen A. Zinkgraf.
    August 7, 1990
    Advance System Consuiltants
    Dear Mr. Padilla (Mario’s assistent at the time)
    I’m sorry for the misunderstanding with regard to Mario’s book.  I had originally contacted Mario to get a copy and since it was sent without an invoice I assumed it was complimentary.
    I’am the plant statistician here at Motorola Sequin and as such I’am responsible for plantwide training.  I’am planning to teach a course centered around Mario’s book, which I find to be excellent.  This, of course will result in the sales of a relatively large number of books and will enhance the book’s chances of being adopted by other Motorola plants. (“Motorola Sequin was part of the Automotive sector and as such did not know that the Semiconductor sector was already into adopting Mario’s methods”)
    If you still wish reimburstment please let me know and I will send you a check.
    Sincerely, Stephen A. Zinkgraf, Ph. D.
    Manager Applied Statistical Engineering
    Now what is this memo saying back in Aug 1990.  By the way when did Steve start teaching at Allied Signal?  When did Allied Signal get on board.  And where did Steve learned his Six Sigma material.  In other words” What did he know and when did he know it”

    0
    #107746

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Gary
    I believe he learned from others as we all do and as Mikel Harry does.  But there is something different about this guy Mario.  He is a creative learner.  For example, when he was given the task of implementing the Six Sigma initiative in the division he was assigned,  (keep in mind that Schaumberg(Motorola Hdqutr) did not provide the roadmap to Six Sigma.  All they did was give the order to their Vp’s to get it done) he studied the matter and came up with the roadmap and the system to implement it.  These roadmaps and systems were coming up from all over Motorola, however it was truly recognized throughout all the Semiconductor Groups and Divsions that Mario Perez-Wilson had the best of the lot.  If fact when Reigle and I were writing back and forth about this several months ago I placed on the Forum a memo written by a VP and signed off by the President of Motorola Semiconductor that Mario Perez-Wilson had the best and most significant Six Sigma strategy.
    Back in GEG Mikel Harry, Reigle Stewart and John Hathaway and I believe Ron Lawson were putting in their contribution to the Six Sigma mandate.  GEG was a little job shop compared to the Semiconductor Sector so alot of that material coming out of Mikel and his crew were academic in structure.  That’s why when you read that material it has a theoretical component to Six Sigma where people like Douglas Montgomery and Bert Keats from ASU can take to heart and teach it.  And I may add throughout industry.
    Back in Semiconductor, there was no interest in teaching this to the world only in getting process improvement going in manufacturing.  So Mario was teaching material he created that worked in a real manufacturing world.  Remember all this stuff done by Mario pre-dates the stuff coming out of GEG.
    Mario had trained all the SME’s(Statistical Methods Eng)  that’s what his plan was.  To train a group of cadres in his method and they in turn train the rest in the division.  Sound familiar “Black Belts”.  In Asia there was a meeting held with all the SME’s and Mikel Harry was invited.  Mikel saw, he like, and he borrowed.  End of story.
    Here is an aside.  One of the SME told me that Mikel wanted to use the presentation material in his Six Sigma cases but the individual had to change all that Mario Perez-Wilson jargon.

    0
    #103543

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Giriraj
    When checking for normality, just use the fat pencil test.  That is what Douglas Montgomery recommends.  Plot the data on a nornal graph paper, then put a pencil along side the data and see if the pencil covers the data.  That will work all the time.
    There is no perfect normal data.  And there are tons of test for normality.  Your conclusions from these varouis test will depend on many factors, including sample size etc.
    Now if your question is directed more towards of why “.05” and not “.04” or “.03” then everyone who has an opinion about it is right.
     
    Orlando

    0
    #102591

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Abhishek
    Balconi gave you an excellent thread to research your question, however I have to caution you on some of the facts stated in the history.
    An article under a person named Daniel T. Laux title “Six Sigma Evolution ….” has some of the facts wrong.  He makes it seem that two gentlemen from the Motorola Government Electronics Group(GEG) put it all together and that was not the case.  Six Sigma was put together by others who did alot of work defining and refining the methodology.  l
    Laux even got Mikel Harry working in GEG  in the 70’s.  That was not the case.  So my word to you is don’t believe evrything you read about this stuff.
     Take care Orlando

    0
    #101857

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hey Bill
    You must not be a bright fellow.  Don’t you know that if Stan doesn’t treat people with dignity and respect on this Forum that he doesn’t respect you either.  You gave him your email so he can notify you if some juicy stuff is online.  “Hey Stan let me know when your giving it to others”.  Are you really saying ” Hey Stan I’m in your click don’t do to me like you do to them, please”
    This is really a Chat Rm not a Six Sigma Forum
    Come on Bill keep your eyes on the ball.  You have to spread the word on Six Sigma not trash it.  A BB is someone who respects and listens to people when they have an issue (no matter what the question are), not trash them or belittle them.  We have to clean up our act.  The verdict on Six Sigma is not in yet.
    Orlando

    0
    #101843

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Bill
    Oh my God you guys do bring out the non-valued crap in me.  I couldn’t stop myself.  I didn’t know there is an active peanut gallery going on.  Well After yeuws guys destroy this Forum I guess you’ll move on to the next.
    Good hunting

    0
    #101830

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    Someone just informed me that they fired you from Motorola.  Now I understand where the anger comes from.  Join one of those encounter groups where they sing those songs, you know the tune, how did you sing it Cum Ba Ya
    Please don’t take me serious because I don’t take you serious. 

    0
    #101797

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    I guess you serve a purpose on this Forum.  It’s kind of a sport in a voyeur sort of way.  You are like an obssessive observer of sensational subject matter who lies in wait ready to spring into action with your keyboard.  I guess that’s OK.  so long as some of your advise to posters helps.
    I believe whenever someone post a response to a question, the reponder also benefit.  Sometimes I verify some answers to get a sense of the value this Forum provides  Some answers are correct and some answers are not.  I suspect some responders do not verify their answers.  It helps me understand who not to take seriously.  Are you one I should take seriously?
    Orlando

    0
    #101769

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    I don’t understand your first paragraph about Mikel.  Do we know each other.  Where in Motorola?
    Your second paragraph about not “man up to criticism I wouldn’t be able to survive in Motorola?  I don’t understand.
    So in your third paragraph, you agreed with me about the dissertation offered.  That it read too confusing?
    Let me know where you knew Mikel Harry and your place in the scheme of Six Sigma  People might be interested
    Orlando

    0
    #101768

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Gastronic
    Your OK, glad to know you.  You word play is fantastic.  I agree about some of thesis titles.
     
    Orlando

    0
    #101754

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Gastronic
    I apologize for what I said.  I really thought you were kidding.  I read what you suggested and  I thought it was so convoluted that it wasn’t a serious proposal.  Again I apologize.
    It goes to my mindset about keeping things simple. 
    Orlando

    0
    #101733

    Orlando
    Participant

    Geoff
    I just started working in a Pharmaceutical company, where do they have Six Sigma?  You have several of them listed.  I don’t think your list has been vetted.
    The FDA just recognized (in 2001) that the Pharmaceutical companies are way behind other manufacturers in process improvements.  Reasons are many but the two big reasons are that the Pharmaceutical industry regard drug development and research as their core competence and not manufacturing and that the FDA regulates the hell out of their industry so if they change a process or optimize a process the FDA scrutinizes the heck out of them so why bother.
    Well anyway, the FDA has come to understand this fact of life so they are pushing on the industry what they call ” Process Analytical Technology” (PAT).  I’ve reviewed their language on this and it sounds to me like a Six Sigma tool kit.  But I didn’t say those words.
    So when I saw those Pharmaceutical companies on your list I know that this list is suspect.
    Orlando

    0
    #101729

    Orlando
    Participant

    Gastronic wrote to Ajun suggesting title for his thesis to be:
    “The Impact on the Six Sigma Practitioner’s Extrinsic Motivation in Selecting Six Sigma Programming Due to Viewing Motorola’s Early Six Sigma Successes as a Motivational Heuristic if the Perception of Program Success is Subsequently Altered by Deteriorating Economic Conditions Affording a Lessening External Locus of Control: A Longitudinal Study “
    How do I draw a smily face with a tongue in cheek?
    Gastronic, your kidding right? Please say you are. 
    Orlando

    0
    #101554

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi K
    I think what you wrote about this forum and the responses is right on.  Some individuals always throw in some kind of personal attack at what some questioner ask.  It seems like if someone asked a stupid question then no one should answer right?  But NOOO. 
    Someone recently said to me that this forum is becoming uncomfortable because if you pose a dumb question (not knowing it’s dumb) then some of these knuckleheads would belittle you in front of the whole Six Sigma community.  It makes them feel superior.  They’ll stick it between a couple of sentences.  They think that they are not doing it because in reality it’s being done below their level of awareness.You kind of feel for them because you know their hungry for recognition or something or else they wouldn’t spend their waking hours on this Forum WHERE THEY DON’T GET PAID.
    But having said this, some individuals are giving correct answers so don’t give up.

    0
    #101415

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Arjun
    SSNewby gave you excellent advice but let me give you an alternative advice. 
    Pick a topic that one member on your committee know a little about but not too much about.  Then do everything that they say.  Never mind about that passion stuff you can feed the world later once you get your degree.
    If your interested in a Six Sigma type project just remember that Six Sigma has become a big monster so you would need to narrow your focus to get a handle on it.  Start readng about the quality subject matter, especially how it evolved. then you’ll get an idea why six Sigma.
    Take car and good luck

    0
    #101414

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Stan
    Your basically giving me advice that your not following.  Now your opinion is that somehow I’m not qualified to judge Darth comments but your qualified to judge my comments. 
    The only reason I spoke to Darth’s comment was that I thought this Forum was to foster the spirit of Six Sigma not to stop it at the door.  I thought he had done just that.
    I don’t like to do this but I’m going to name drop next.
    Let me give an example, I worked in Motorola GEG during Mikel Harry tenure there back in the early 80’s.  A job posting came up indicating a position in the Radar Div for a “statistical person” .  Back then nothing was defined as Black Belt etc.  I informed Mikel about the position and he immediately started helping me for the interview.  He didn’t say “go read a book” or “you gotta know what you really want”.  He was trying to spread the word on Six Sigma. 
    If we want to grow Six Sigma and get a larger community involved we have to be gentlemans/ladies.  90% of Six Sigma resource spent is using persuation and convincing.  The “soft” stuff.  So when I read a little abrupt language coming from some who I think is smart enough to know better, I say something.

    0
    #101396

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Darth
    Gee, what do you mean by starting off “I don’t know what academic program you were in”.  What is making you say that.  Here’s what I’m reading in your response.
    “Hey buddy I don’t know what planet your from but a dissertation is done this way and no other way cause that’s my philosophy”.  All the other words in between is just a variation on that theme.
    Darth, this fellow just threw a question out there because the forum community seems like a conversation among people who practice this stuff.  He did it innocently.  And now some people come down hard because it doesn’t jive with their “Philosophy” or something.  I suspect that you never asked anyone in academia for a topic.  You already knew what your dissertation was going to be about since your freshman year.
    You should be lucking you didn’t have someone like me on your committee because I like to crackdown on people who think they’re so “cock sure” about the way the world works.  I would have you revising your topic until the last edition would not contain the same topic.

    0
    #101393

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi PB
    I wish I’ve known exactly what my dessertation was going to be about from the start.  I had to change my topic completely.  I couldn’t blame anyone on that one and if someone gave me a suggestion I wouldn’t blame the suggester either. 
    PB, if a Forum member throws out a suggested topic on Six Sigma and Ajun runs with it, then realizes it isn’t what he wanted then that’s OK.  That’s call the learning process.  And I doubt if the topic is narrowed down where a book can be suggested that would do the trick.  Ajun might still change his mind.
    So are you saying that before anyone ask for any suggestions from this Forum, they better know exactly how to ask for it.  Else we’ll tell them that they should know what Six Sigma is all about so they can be more specific.

    0
    #101382

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Arjun
    Please don’t be turned off by some people on this forum who sound like their angry or something.  Your going to find that alot of these writers think they know everything there is to know about six sigma  and they’ve been writing in this forum for so long that they think that they belong to some kind of in-crowd so that they think they are the “us” and anyone who ask questions are the “them”.
     I’ve been in the trade many years and I’m still humbled about what’s out there.  Just give it time and someone will give you some topic hints.
    By the way there are a million ways to do a dessertation for the millions of topics that you can do them on.  And I know that you were not looking for someone to do your work.
    Thanks for asking

    0
    #100198

    Orlando
    Participant

    In most cases I would agree with you but I began thinking of this.  If Matthew John Luke and Mark published their material taking full credit for Christian dogma, then we wouldn’t know about Jesus.  In other words, if a person doesn’t publish and another person does, then that is proof that the person publishing the material is the person responsible for it’s content?.  I know Ph.D.’s who do nothing but write and publish Quailty material and some of us look to them as if they know what a factory floor llooks like. 
    Let me describe to you a little scene that took place in GEG when I went into Mikel Harry’s office.  First, Mikel was always super busy writing on his computor.  I notice that he had about three or four books spread out next to him.  He would be reading them and writing down on some document he was creating.  I didn’t bother disturbing him but I couldn’t help thinking to myself  “Oh that’s the way these guys do it”.  In fact, that is what graduate school teaches.  How to do research and write and publish.  There is nothing wrong with that but I rather be on the factory floor and learning what the process is doing there.  Sure I’ll read what Quality writers or Six Sigma writer have to say about a process.  And these people are our hero’s because of this material they generate.  They are the ones who define the theory.  But process issues don’t always lend themselves to well layed out phase approaches written by someone with writing skills.  That’s why I try to tell the real story.  I don’t have the big picture but I have enough of it that Mikel Harry’s big guns are smoked out to refute it.
    On published material from Mario.  Mario Perez-Wilson published many books.  Review his WEB site.  But if your looking for some kind of academic jargon, you won’t find it there.
     
    Orlando

    0
    #100157

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Andy
    I’m happy that many readers of this forum take a keen interest in the historical development of this very important quality initiative.  My purpose was to just give the Six Sigma community a sense of what went on during those very early and critical years.  I didn’t want to short change Mikel Harry because what he did to define Six Sigma and layout what it meant was truley very important.  What I wanted the Six Sigma community to understand was that Six Sigma in total and it’s elements (DMAIC, BB,GB,YB, role of Champions, etc…) was not the creation of one individual but a creation from a bunch of hard working men  and women in Motorola who found themselves being challenged by the competitive environment and came up with this initiative.  I just singled out Mario Perez-Wilson because in my eyes and in the eyes of many in SPS he contributed the most to this challenge.
    When ex-SME stated that Mikel saw SPS presentations in regards to how to implement a characterization process through a 5-phase method and with who to implement the characterization, Mikel started to come out with the phase concept and who would implement characterization.  I’m not saying anything negative about what he did on this because I and many others would do the same and it did change history.  As far as what Reigle said that Mikel was the one that sold it to ASQ and everyone bought into it.  That was great.  He is a great Salesman.  And maybe that is the reason we should give him alot of the credit.  After all, if he couldn’t sell this thing then most of us would be out of a job or define our roles other than BB
    I can compare this Six Sigma system and it’s cultural change to an idealogy. .  For example, if Six Sigma was a communist system, then Mikel Harry would be like a Karl Marx and Mario Perez-Wilson would be like a Lenin.
    Orlando
     

    0
    #99924

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Reigle
    I’m sorry, you were right about the printing date.  I incorrectly looked at the lower inside cover where it said copyright.  In the right lower cornor it reads 3-03-88.  I believe the second printing was 1990.  I tried to paint a true picture of this history so if you see that I’m wrong and I agree then I quickly let the Six Sigma community know.  That way I’ll always be credible with this community.
    But still, the Six Sigma plan was already pretty much laid out by 5/88.  I don’t know why Scott Shumway said Mikel can head the SPS Six Sigma effort for SPS.  You got me on that one.  I guess I’ll way for the paper trail your putting on.
    Thanks Reigle for pointing that out
    Orlando

    0
    #99911

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Reigle
    I’mmm back.  Sorry about this.  I know I promise myself I wouldn’t be doing this but as you know when you write something down you get to thinking about the things you should have mentioned.  Very short.
    After I posted that email message from the Hunchos at headquarters of the Semiconductor Sector (SPS) mentioning Mario’s effort for the Div. I thought that “Hey, this email is dated May 88, surely Reigle would say to himself -damn this pre-dates alot of the stuff Mikel has done, What can I say now!”.   What you stated in your last message was all true.  Bob Glavin did choose Mikels proposal above all others.  He was picked to lead the Six Sigma effort.  Great accomplishments. This includes being picked Director of the Six Sigma Institute in Schaumberg Ill.   But if you read that memo carefully, you will notice that it addresses specific action plans and goals to support the stated objectives.  Remember that Corporate mandated the whole Motorola to implement Six Sigma.  The date on the momo is May 88.  Oh my god, Mikel was still in GEG explaining how Six Sigma was tied to a manufacturing process.  He hadn’t even published Six Sigma Producibility Analysis and Process Characterization (1990) with Ron Lawson yet.  He was still doing great writing and publishing internal books for the company.  Doing things someone in graduate school would do alot of.
    When the memo clearly states that the roadmap for implementing Six Sigma was already laid out in May 1988.  How could anyone be identified as being the person who thought up all these wonderful things.  Reigle to Mikel, Ohps you address him as Dr Harry.  “What are we going to say next?”
      That last line was just to add humor.  Don’t take it no other way OK
    Orlando

    0
    #99881

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Reigle
    I keep thinking of that line from Godfather III where Al P. says ” I keep trying to get out but they keep dragging me back in.”
    Well anyway, since you are going to be courteous enough to the Six Sigma community by posting a historical audit trail I though I would post this email I took from the “Machine Process Capability” textbook from the Appendix   I’ll write it like I read it.
    TO: Carlos Genardini (V.P.) SSSP
    FR: Scott Shumway (V.P.) Semiconductor Product Sector Quality.
    DA: 26 May 88 at 15:29:54
    CC: Gordon Chilton (V.P.) Discrete Product Group SPS
            Tommy George (V.P.) V.P. and Asst General Manager SPS
            Jim Norlin – V.P. and General Manager SPS
    RE: SSSP DIVISION SIX SIGMA ROADMAP AND GOALS
    I have just completed a review of your division’s Six Sigma roadmap and supporting detailed action plans and goals — An outstanding package.  Your division, with Mario Perez-Wilson’s efforts in coordinating the task, is truly implrementing what we are expecting of all divisions in the sector.  That is: Application of the Six Sigma roadmap as it applies at the division level, generation of the specific action plans and goals to support the stated objectives and rates of improvement, and incorporation of these into the division five year plans.
    Thanks for your leadership in our quality improvement process.
          Scott
    Signed:  To Carlos Thanks- good job!  Jim N.
    Reigle, you notice that the V.P. in charge of the division gets the credit from the Semiconductor General Manager.  Like the V.P. did all the work.  Isn’t that how it always is.  I know that in Semiconductor Product Sector SPS that was the way it was done.  That’s why I mentioned that Mikel wouldn’t have gotten very far in this highly competitive environment.
    OK I’ll shut-up now.  I promise.  Your turn to post.
    P.S.  Notice the date of the email.
       Orlando

    0
    #99872

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Reigle
     

    0
    #99838

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Reigle
    Your a good guy sticking up for Mikel like you do.  He should buy you dinner.  I’m not going to respond anymore on this matter because the historical perspective has been refined more than before and that was my purpose.
    Someone on this Forum notice that Motorola isn’t the “Quality” giant that it use to be.  Well you and I both know that a quality initiative such as Six Sigma has to be constantly reinforce on the target population and management has to be constantly pushed to support it.  For example,  Carlos Genardini Senior (V.P.) had left the Div at 52nd street in the early 90’s while Mario was on leave and his replacement was a fellow named Jerry Curtis.  Well I attended the first staff meeting with Jerry Curtis and the first thing out of his miouth was “What are we doing about scrap”.  My heart sank because I knew right then that this guy was from the “old school”.and he had no clue about what was going on. 
    Mario’s method was pretty much instituted so our quality was good for many years but we couldn’t keep it going forever.  Then in the late 90’s we got Bill George V.P. (Just completed a term as President of Sematech but former Motorolean) and the new slogen was “Back to Basics”  Meaning back to what we were doing before which had proven so successful.  That paints a picture of  Motorola’s decline.
    One more thing about how this discussion got me started.  Please answer to the best of your memory.  I know you and Mikel had written on Six Sigma Mechanical Design Tolerance or something like that and I know that Mikel had written about Six Sigma.  And I know that you had mentioned in one of your previous reply that Mikel patent the BB, GB, and the method during a training session he had outside of GEG.  Well, if you read ex-SME statement that it wasn’t until Mikel attended a SME session in Asia that the Six Sigma method was finally written down.  In other words, It finally gelled or the “How to do it” was realized, where before he just wrote about the statistics behind the Six Sigma standard deviation and the 1.5 drift etc.  Also, other Motorola facilities were doing process improvement and not just GEG.  Since the Motorola sectors were so isolated from each other, how could GEG claim to have the “fellow” and be the Div that showed the world about Six Sigma.  Also, we won the Malcom Baldrige award in 1988 based on what Motorola worldwide was doing not just GEG, RIGHT.   The Baldrige committee visited the FAB’s in Asia and saw what was happening.  Did GEG have FAB’s in Asia or outside Scottsdale AZ.?  Come on, give the rest of the Motorola sectors their due.
         And that’s why I had to respond.  I’ll be quiet for now
    Thanks Reigle  Orlando 

    0
    #99806

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi GEG Exec
    Don’t worry about sounding too demeaning, the readers of this Forum will determine that for themselves.  As for me, I know myself well and I’m confident enough that I just brush it off if I believe someone was trying to pull one on me.  In other words, be demeaning if you wish it’s OK.  But it seems like you guys keep sounding that way.  Oh well,
    I agree with you on all the great things Mikel Harry has done.  Remember I was there too or else I wouldn’t say what I’ve been saying.  I know that back in 1986 and 1987 Mikel was trying to get GEG to do alot of the things Motorola now accepts as gospel.  He was enthusiastic about it too.  I knew this because my interest is in Statistics so I know by talking to him what his love was.  He was pushing you guys to do statistical methods to characterize processes and to solve quality issues.  He did all the great things you mentioned.  I’m not saying he didn’t contribute.  What I’m saying is that all his methods in Six Sigma were not dreamed up by himself.  For example, while GEG had Mikel.  Semiconductor, on 52nd street had Mario.  In fact there was a whole group there in each Div.: Power, Zener, Small Signal.  Remember, back in those days GEG and Semiconductor were two sectors that didn’t communicate with each other about this stuff.  Sure we had Motorola Univ in Tempe where classes in DOE and Statistics were held but we didn’t visit each other or had any contact where we knew what you guys were doing or you guys knew what we were doing right?  So why are you so surprise that you guys at GEG never heard of Mario.  You didn’t hear much about the Semiconductor sector.
    Mario was in charge of the Statistical Methods engineers in the Small Signals Div. and the Small Signals Div was the most advance in Process Characterization and using a 5 stage method to characterize a process.  Small Signals had many factories all over the world and this method was taught to all of them.  A lot of the teams in the Total Customer Satisfaction competition had used this 5 stage methodology and were very successful.  In fact I knew a team from Mexico who went all the way to Sector level.  This method is so Six Sigma
    One more point about going up the latter.  GEG was heavily regulated by the government and most of your programs were small.  A big fish in a small pond can be notice.  In Semiconductor, we had many FAB’s and  many cost centers, in other words a great big pond.  I don’t think Mikel would have gotten very high in Semiconductor.  The engineers there would have ripped him apart.  It was less genteel than GEG.  Semiconductor operated in a competitive environment where GEG did not. 
    Thanks for responding.
    Orlando

    0
    #99786

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi Mike
    Giving most of the credit to Mario Perez Wilson is a fair assessment.  The reason for my point of view is that the process improvement effort that was going on in the Small Signal Div of Motorola during the period of 1987 and beyond was all due to Mario.  When Motorola Six Sigma Institute was created the MPCpS methodology was well established throughout the Div.  Including all the Asian factory sites that ex-SME cited.  I also know that Mikel Harry wrote much material including a book on a phase approach to characterization, however I pointed out that no mention of Six Sigma or the DMAIC approach was listed.  He did published a book with Ron Law Ph.D. GEG where he has a Definition, Analysis, Optimization, and Control phase to characterization but this book was puublished in 1990.  One thing to rmember about the DMAIC is that it use to be MAIC.  My point is that Six Sigma is always evolving.
    Ex-SME made an interesting point,  Mikel Harry was invited to see and discuss all the MPCpS projects that were completed under Mario’s methodolgy.  Right after that we start seeing the methododolgy of Six Sigma.being defined.  I won’t take anything away from Mikel Harry because he did alot of work at Motorola GEG and he did publish some material relating to Six Sigma but nothing that had to do with how to achieve it.
    The reason I believe that everyone knows about Harry and not Mario Perez -Wilson is because Mikel knows how the marketing system operates and how to make it work for him.  Also being a Ph.D. helps in that marketing scheme.  When your buying a Quality book from somewhere does it help your decision if the author was a Ph.D. 
    I knew Mario in Motorola, he didn’t take any BS.  If you didn’t walk the walk he’l let you know including managers.  I’m trying to communicate something intangible like why someone is recognized for creating an idea and another person isn’t.
    On the question of Reigle Stewart.  I believe it was Reigle responding and not Mikel.  I knew of Reigle in GEG but we never worked together.  He was a technician at GEG and worked on some of the project Mikel worked on.  They wrote a phamplet together at one point.  Six Sigma Mechanical Design or something like that.  But I know it wasn’t during the 1980’s it was more in the early 90’s.
    Hope this helps.   Orlando

    0
    #99753

    Orlando
    Participant

    Hi ssmbb The book I think is the best for process characterization is the original book that got everything started at the Signal Div of Motorola Semiconductor and that is the “Machine/Process Characterization Study-A Five Stage Methodology for Optimizing Process”. That book has been revised many times since it’s inception and is one of the best around. Many industries use that book. Also, read the Gauge R&R Study book. It includes destructive test R&R. Not many books have that. One book which I think does a good job of explaining different variation is the Multi-Vari and Chart book. It’s a little on the mathematical side but it reads very simply and explains different types of variation using an example of a Semiconductor process. The Web site is http://www.mpcps.com I would start with these books and I know they’ll help.
    Orlando

    0
    #99672

    Orlando
    Participant

    Yes, Terry this is very helpful.
    What we are trying to do here is to compare each dollar invested on Six  Sigma, what had been the benefit. Example invest 1 dollar return 2 and this links you send helps me as a guideline to see what cost related to Six Sigma needs to be consider against the return
    Thxs
    Orlando

    0
    #99659

    Orlando
    Participant

    Someone had ask me to review what was being written under the Richard Schroader heading and to make some comments if I wished. After reading what ex-SME had written and the various responses from Reigle and the community, I said “Heck Yea”. I want to describe (a little oral history from my personnel view) what I believed to be the truth and hopefully if someone ever decides to write a definitive history of Six Sigma they’ll have many points of view to consider. I’ll name individuals the best I can so they’ll be no doubt that I exist. I started in Motorola GEG in 84 and met Mikel Harry sometime in early 86. At that time he was reporting to Dick White (Mgr QA). He was working in the Advance Quantitative Lab. Also in the Lab was a colleague his named John Hathaway. I was aware that Mikel and John were generating a lot of classroom material on SPC, DOE and teaching. Also there was one particular book on a Phase Approach to Characterization Study which I believe was the best of the material. There wasn’t any DMAIC or Six Sigma mentioned or cited in that book but it was a comphrensive approach to characterizing a process. I believe in late1988 I did start to see some material starting to appear mentioning the words Six Sigma, but it wasn’t anything about DMAIC or BB GB etc. One example was a pamphlet titled “The Nature Of Six Sigma Quality” by Mikel Harry with no copyright date stated, however within the body of the pamphlet he did cite himself for “Application of the Taguchi Design Philosophy” (1987). So if I were to place a timeline it would be fair to say that the Six Sigma initiative was starting to germinate about 1988. I don’t understand Reigle Steward statement that Mikel Harry had the terms deployed back in 1986 “DMAIC, BB, GB” etc in the training program he delivered at Unysis. I just wished he deploy those terms with GEG in 1986,87,88 ? GEG sure needed it back then. Perhaps management at GEG wasn’t ready to accept the Six Sigma initiative. Also, I’m familiar with the roundup article about the 140 hours of training for some individuals. I ran into some of those individuals. Many couldn’t care less about using statistics to solve problems. I remember the Purchasing manager (Larry Burleson) paying lip service by picking some Buyers just to satisfy some training requirement. There was no attempt to identify a good Black Belt candidate because nothing was mentioned about that. Meanwhile in the Tactical Div. Mario Perez-Wilson was applying his Process Characterization methods to quality issues there. In 1987 Carlos Genardini (V.P. & Gen Mgr of the Small Signal Div., Semiconductor Sector Motorola) brought in Mario specifically to bring the Small Signal Div up to speed in Process Characterization. I believe Carlos heard of Mario and was familiar with some of the work he was doing in the Tactical Div of GEG. So Mario was given the mandate to get the whole thing started within the Semiconductor Sector. In January 1988 I started in the Small Signal Div of Motorola. Mario was starting to establish the SME program and was putting together the Machine Process Capability textbook. He already knew what worked and what didn’t so the methodology was already proven. His method was copyrighted (MPCpS). By the way, years after Mario left the company the engineering community was still using MPCpS methods and documenting the process with the document format he established. This is an indicator that the methods taught do stick around and are not quickly forgotten like other quality initiatives. First, let me say that I respect all that Mikel has done and written in regards to Six Sigma. I have many of his written material. But I must confess, when I read what ex-SME had written I felt like a great truth that’s been lurking in the background has finally come to the forefront. What I didn’t expect was that Reigle Steward was going to respond so vehemently to what ex-SME had written. It reminds me of a line from Shakespear “I think he protest too much”. Let me also say that I have absolutely no financial interest in Mario Perez-Wilson business.In hindsight, when I review all that is good about Six Sigma and comparing it to the program taught to the SME at Small Signal FAB, MPCpS was truly the first “Six Sigma” class. Unlike previous “How To” classes, where you would receive bits of DOE here and Graphs there, this class was an all encompassing “Gestalt” class on how to characterize a process. This was going on in early 88 and beyond. As ex-SME stated, “Prior to Mario Perez-Wilson working in Motorola Semiconductor, the implementation of continuous improvement was not methodical nor organized and we were fixing the same problems year after year. He changed all of that with his methodology and the SMEs approach.”
    The textbook (MPCpS) Mario created reflected years of experience actually solving and charactering processes. When comparing Mikels material with Marios material you notice a qualitative difference. Mikel material uses a lot of jargon from academia and Marios material is more of an application type. For example, Mikel wrote an Application Resource booklet where he has 71 Data Organizer pages (1985). The first thing one would say is ” when the hell am I ever going to use all this stuff”. He also has a section on Problem Solving procedures. This section is very exhaustive with many problem solving strategies but without any mention of DMAIC etc. What I’m trying to bring out is that he is a prolific writer and you have to give him credit for all that but it’s overwhelming for the guy who just wants to solve a factory problem or characterize a process. If this was a court of law and my life depended on a good defense, I would want Mario in my corner and not Mikel. Mikel would overwhelm the jury with details which may or may not have to do with the case at hand.
    On the other hand, Mario’s material is simply written. More Germanic than Latin. Mario’s material can be understood by everyone who’s actually doing something on the factory floor or in an office. Just browse through a copy and not take this writers word for it. I wouldn’t even pay attention to the countless endorsers on Mario’s WEB site, I would just see for myself. Read the Multi-Vari Chart and Analysis book, that’s a good one. If you have a quantitative bent like myself then this is a book you’ll enjoy.
    My name is Orlando and I’m a Quality Mgr of Statistics in a Pharmaceutical company somewhere in New Jersey. By the way, the Pharmaceutical’s need Six Sigma immediately.

    0
Viewing 42 posts - 1 through 42 (of 42 total)