Reigle Stewart

To Wuth:
The following exert is quoted from the “Ask Dr. Harry” section of this website:
The capability of a process has two distinct but interrelated dimensions. First, there is “short-term capability,” or simply Z.st. Second, we have the dimension “long-term capability,” or just Z.lt. Finally, we note the contrast Z.shift = Z.st – Z.lt…[Read more]

Issa, a process can be in a state of statistical control
(random variation only), yet be too wide relative to the
performance specification limits. For example, consider a
given manufacturing technology that is centered on the
target value such that M = T, where M is the process
mean and T is the design target. To further our…[Read more]

Tom:
I love your last sentence: “Randomness is just another word for ignorance about the causes.”  Great numerical example. 

Reigle

Tom:
Great post!  The concept of “significant many” is interesting.  But how should one define the term “significant”?  This is another tributary of the analytical Amazon that should eventually be explored. 
Do you believe Dr. Juran’s meaning to be “statistically significant”?  Could he mean “practically significant?”  Yes, the cumulative influ…[Read more]

Tom:
 
I would agree that this topic is worthy of further discussion.  I would also agree that these two words, as well as their union, are frequently misunderstood and inappropriately applied (by novices and experienced practitioners alike).
 
Some would say that nothing in nature happens by chance, everything moves in some sort of trend, sh…[Read more]

Tom, your perspective is most interesting and has high appeal. RS.

Six Sigma Tom:
I would have to agree.  The idea of a “random cause” is merely a label we attach to a miniscule assignable cause that our current array of analytical tools can not effectively or efficiently discern.  In this sense, random causes can not be statistically separated for independent analysis (in a practical way).
Reigle Stewart

Terry:
You are absolutely correct.  Dr. Harry did not do anything single-handedly, no more than a CEO of a company does it all.  Over the years, many people have contributed to the furthering of Six Sigma.  This is evidenced by the numerous books and articles on the topic.
However, it is undeniable that he was a pioneer in the field of Six Sig…[Read more]

Andy, your perspective is well taken and appreciated.
You ask what happens if one were to realize a new
process set point — owing to a redesign, introduction of
new technology, etc. Well, its pretty simple … you have a
new level of entitltement. The entitlement concept and
supporting equations still apply. They are merely applied…[Read more]

Andy, I find your recent statement most peculiar. In your
recent post, you state “Accordingly, my ‘charge,’ as you
put it, is that Dr.Harry only documented what he believed
Motorola’s Six Sigma process should be and not what
was actually practiced. Therefore, it is hardly surprising
that so many companies in the West are still st…[Read more]

Tony, Darth is fully right about the general understanding
of what process entitlement is. However, YOUR definition
or MY defintion or ANYONE’s personal definition is not
important. What is important are the core equations that
describe process entitltement, how the data is collected to
feed those equations, and how the resultant…[Read more]

Andy, I do appreciate and respect your recollection of
things. We all have recollections and meaningful
memories (as flawed as they may be). We all see things
differently in retrospect. However, one thing that does not
falter over time is the artifacts (documents). I do not
dismiss the contributions of others, because they too have…[Read more]

Andy U:
Yes indeed, I have emotional issues — from the nagging grief induced by my overwhelming lack of intellectual capacity to my truck tire that won’t retain air.  Its very possible I missed your point.  If you believe so, I humbly apologize. 
Now, to my point, please provide specific references to substantiate your accusations (without yo…[Read more]

Paul Gibbons:
Your point is well taken and makes perfect sense.  I do know they just recently got under way with Six Sigma, but I am not privy to their specific plans and performance data.  You should talk directly to the folks at ASU.  I believe your contact there would be Mr. Jeff Goss, Assistant Dean, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Ari…[Read more]

To bbdavid:
To help you through this, consider the following:
1) V1 is the value of realized capacity per dollar; i.e., V1 = C1 /C3, where C1 is the realized capacity and C3 is the total cost of realization.
2) V2 is the value of potential capacity per dollar; i.e., V2 = C2 / C3, where C2 is the potential capacity (or some other idealized state…[Read more]

Andy U:
I very much appreciated your responses, but I am not quite sure what Motorola Fabs (during the 80’s) has to do with anything.  If you see a connection, OK, I’ll run with that.  More to the point, I offer the following commentary to your recent post.
 
A) YOUR STATEMENT: “As for jealousy –  I have no interest in ‘dead know…[Read more]

Paul, we would be most interested in your description of
the factors you mention. Please share your perspective
with us.

Vinny, that graph was too funny. I enjoyed it.

Andy, you are free to say what you like, whenever you
like. As you say, that is the nature of a public forum. You
may not see it, but the poster you mention made no
connection between Dr. Harry and the question of
process entitlement. It was made by way of your ill-
intentioned association. Dr. Harry has used the term
“process…[Read more]

Paul, this is a great question. They would be happy to
share their perspective with you.