iSixSigma

Sankar

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #183682

    Sankar
    Participant

    Thanks… great insight;
    Definitely the points above helped, and I want to know how much you can reduce COPQ in leather tanning industry.
    Thanks for the help!

    0
    #182013

    Sankar
    Participant

    Stan
    Thanks for pointing out my error. Phil Crosby deserves more than a Ph.D. I didn’t insist on Ph.D as a requirement for any field and I don’t normally attach importance to Qualifications alone. Quality is all about attitude, relevance, consistency and not having any bias. It requires dedication and perseverance and commitment..  Mr. Phil Crosby , Dr.Taguchi, type of people’s idealistic thinking and various  tools evolved  only helped  us to reach where we are to-day in Quality.
     I just named a few to remind that Six Sigma is a branch of Quality .Most of the breakthorugh achievements also are made with the ideas of operators who work with the processes more closely than others. I fully credit them for their ideas and work with commitment with floor people and educate them also about development in Quality.
    The point I wanted to make was not to highlight historical perspective alone and want to credit any one particular individual line of thinking alone. I wanted to ensure that Quality profession includes  Six Sigma also and I am in that mission also now, but  not Six Sigma alone at the cost of all other established thinking and practices and that would be a short-sighted approach with total disregard to all in Quality field.
    Why not like a sof-ware engineer is expected to know several new softwares for a company, Quality professionals can also be demanded to have various strengths including Six-Sigma and that will strengthen more long-range quality and minimize short-range losses also. After all QMS won’t be possible without a separate Quality function and an MR. Same would definitely be applicable to Six-Sigma as otherwise any processes altered by an individual Six Sigma team, if there is no continuity with the existing quality function, you can’t expect it to have any long-range continuity. You can’t trace back the Six Sigma team which had left already to come and fix it again. How to ensure normal QC problem is not hijacked into a Six Sigma project? This can be ensured by existing Quality functions only.

    0
    #182010

    Sankar
    Participant

    Herbie
    Thanks for pointing out my typo error. Control charts distinguish clearly what is the difference between assignable cause and common causes. It is an opportunity for me to perfect in my  typing also. I have no problems with that as Quality professional.
    We need to blame the top management and other relevant people for not allowing the Quality professionals to do their job.  There is no single medicine for cure for all pains yet in the world. So I don’t want to get into that debate. Blamegame also won’t help anything.
    For me all Quality discoveries starting from Dr. Shewart to Dr.Juran to Dr. Deming and many other Quality stalwarts, including Six Sigma, Lean  all can be used correct if you understand it and use it  prudent.
    Six Sigma is yet to have any accreditation body in all countries monitoring the certifications of all the belts for your kind information. Anyone in the World can get Green Belt certified easily without any Quality background and experience or knowledge to startwith. They are tested only when they do the live project for Black Belts as they have to prove their credibility with the client organization.
    When it comes to Quality,  the World war precipitated the need for Mil Std. and then many discoveries, tools,  methodologies evolved  and adopted by many in the world to achieve their quality objectives. Six Sigma is also one like that for me as a Quality Professional.
    You cannot  complete a  house without foundations built first and all the tools including SPC, ISO etc., helped you to do that as otherwise you and me wouldn’t be talking about doing on-line global businesses or discussing this in Six-Sigma forum.
    After the advent of SPC,TQM, ISO etc…..only top management understood the need for quality, systems, processes, data driven approach etc…. If Internal auditors can do a sincere job, you don’t need to bother about third party audits and you can’t balme only Quality professionals for that. In a buyer’s world when ISO had demanded Quality and thrown open the quality manual to the customers it is more transparent , it all depends upon how an organization is interested in quality. What you are trying to prove is even if they don’t bother, Six Sigma people alone can help the management and shareholders. This can be only for short-sighted approach. 
    Still Quality  is a long way to go. Life is a long journey to the humanity and if we think of only the end of the world, none of us can claim to be an optimist and it is against Quality/Six-Sigma philosophy. Just because you need a commando force to clear some problems, you can’t demean the quality professionals and use commando force alone to safeguard all your processes at all times. You can’t establish process/business  continuity with temporary people.
    All technical inventions starting from Transistors etc…all happened after 1930. I am a Scientist and a passionate Quality Professional for the last 20 years who embraced all techniques and tools ,   preach and practicle all facets of quality including Six Sigma, Lean practices in my career and now pass on that passionate experience  to students also without any prejudices. The point I am trying to make is one new invention can’t take away the credit of earlier inventions. All Scientists know that as ethical requirement so as Quality professionals. I expect the same ethics from Six Sigma Professsionals also. I also don’t claim Six Sigma invention is meaningless and I always say in my classes  that the Define phase of Six Sigma definitely helped all the organizations who took the bold step to Six Sigma  and top management can be made to wake up atleast for their selfish/organisational  interest which is good for Quality improvement. I don’t think that can be done for ever by discarding Quality professionals as most humans don’t want to accept their mistakes first. Quality professionals are by nature call spade as spade first to all. To improve on quality further  the otherside has to bite that truth. Equilibrium of the lorganization for long-range also need tobe considered.
    If we have very good Design engineers who can follow Dr.Taguchi or Dr.Phil Crosby’s thinking about quality in the product/process design and a dedicated workforce, you don’t need anything including ISO or special teams. Unfortunately in reality that is still too far away.

    0
    #182000

    Sankar
    Participant

    Hernie
    I didn’t mean to take any credit away from Lean invention. In fact if you look at my initial discussion I wanted to say thanks to the automotive big three industries interest on SPC was sustained to develop into Six-Sigma later and even QMS like ISO-9001 was based on QS-9000 initially. In the same vein, I am willing to accept the credit for Lean also to the automotive industries.
     I would also like to say that Shewart’s control charts are fundamental discovery which is the foundation for control of mass manufacturing. and reducing variability.  1930 SPC stands even to-day and forever like laws of Physics. While Lean can be done by various organizations to their facility, taste and culture when we talk of 52 or Poke-Yoke,Kanban etc……SPC can’t be left to individual methodologies or ways to do in any fashion as it requires a complete statistical understanding and process control. To the extent SPC or Six Sigma was promoted to be used by lots of industries , Lean is gaining momentum again after the success of Six-Sigma. We can’t deny that. Process variability is fundamental to the process when we talk of machines and technology and we can control that too is a breakthrough discovery.

    0
    #181775

    Sankar
    Participant

    Thanks a lot Mr. Andy U for your clear explanation with details for different cases. I will try it out in Minitab and this is what I was looking for. If we can arrive at the process shift for our process on our own, for the sample size, type of chart and control we use, this arbitrary 1.5sigma shift need not be taken into account and we can go by actuals in the conventional way.

    0
    #181773

    Sankar
    Participant

    Point I tried to make is SPC was invented in 1930’s but big way used by 3 big automotives for others to get enlightened to use in small industries also. Otherwise I don’t think ISO would have tried to model their standard in tune with QS-9000’s  20 elements in 1994 version. Then they left it to individual choise in 2000 version,  how one use or implement SPC without putting any conditions. That is not the case with QS-9000 which means big 3 have played a very  big role in promoting SPC inadvertently in the world.
    Lean management is left to individuals.organizations to do in the way they feel like as it is more of organizing your house in order with less fat.When you talk of Poke-Yoke or 5S or Andon it is left to our imaginations and cultural convenience to implement it to keep your house in order. But SPC is more of product /process related variabilitiy which requires sophisticated Statistical tools to keep things in order. There in statistics, we can’t play and invent without 100% sure it works and it will work for ever. Lean was promoted after seeing the success of SPC/ Six Sigma not the other way, I feel. You may be right that big 3 followed Lean also and may be before. But I would give the full credit to their system including  SPC madndatory at the operational level.

    0
    #181764

    Sankar
    Participant

    I can agree on what you say. But Shewart’s work was in 1930’s which opened the possibility of mass manufacturing with statistical control made possible. Big 3 automotives are the actual users of SPC for all of us to reach where we are to-day. Forget about 2 or 3 sigma limits or shifts.
    But now we have all sophisticated computers, simulations and CNC machines etc…….how many of us have analyzed the 1.5 Sigma shift on their individual processes  long range to arrive and claim precise sigma variation with time than having a theoretical assumption for all, which can’t be assumed on all working processes. We need to be specific and even in SPC control charts 1/3 variation have been mentioned by many for long range which is for you to bring back the process into control as you decided to monitori it every now and then. We don’t do that in the Z table to correct our sigma which we can always do it as per our actual long range variations. It could be anything from 0-33%.
    Expecting a shift, wanting to consider that as an opportunity on all processes,  we could be calling normal design practices as DFSS. Same normal process variation again as an opportunity for Six sigma instead of tackling with normal established QC practices. What is continual improvement in regular QA/ISO systems? That is the point I want to clear in this forum. With a Six sigma process what is the percentile distribution on a working process? Is it the same 68% for 1 Sigma, 95% for 2 sigma and 99.73 for 3 sigma or what is the distribution other than the fact that majority we get in the target like a hieghtened peak like a fine tuned fixed frequency amplifier. In regular SPC chart it could be called hugging the centreline. If that is the case, we have controlled the process to that precision statistically and we should not have 1.5 sigma shift at all as it shouldn’t drastically alter your rejections all of a sudden.
    In case that is what we should expect, we have forcibly fine tuned the process including the commoncause variations, without knowing the process characteristics over a period of time. What should be the monitoring methods? Shewart’s chart theoretically distinguishes the two variations in process very clear and for statistical equilibrium considers only assignable causes into consideration. That clarity is missing in Six Sigma education. Role of black belt, the requirement should be a clear project management capabilities before starting any project on Six Sigma and these skills are not included or strictly demanded  in the curriculum. Now anyone with a professional degree can learn the Six Sigma methodology and use it without bothering about the existing QA systems and long term effects on company’s processes due to  their individual short term achievements alone as goals. How can we prevent that? 
    Who will fix the after effects on this long range shift? Again we will have another Black belt project to bring it back to correct by1.5 sigma or what? Why not demand the QA Engineer should know Six sigma techniques in addition to the industrial  quality engg, QMS and project management skills to run the quality drive long range and stable in organizations?

    0
    #181746

    Sankar
    Participant

    Spell mistake of Binomial to Binomail was found to six sigma accuracy by you. Thanks. We need to use the same accuracy to find out 1.5 Sigma shift how it can be located to accuracy in all processes?

    0
    #181744

    Sankar
    Participant

    We are talking of process shift and I didn’t say we have to recalculate the control limits. Sometimes as long as process  is within spec. limits. we are asked to again calculate the short range capability if we want to calculate again the limits to accomodate the new process reality of shift in average. If we take the difference between the initial limits of the process and the new it is just process shift which again we can bring to the original level if we want to. This shift only I am saying is coupled with the 1.5 sigma shift to look that all processes we should expect that even if it doesn’t exist.

    0
    #181742

    Sankar
    Participant

    My simple concern of this 1.5sigma shift and sigma table is that it just ignore the Z-table evolved and used by QA professionals all over the world and it is evolved with permanent mathematical correlation irrespective of the sigma process for the last 60 years. 3Sigma limit with specifications tolerance is well established by Walter Shewart to be 99.73% and with this 1.5 sigma shift we want to call that as 93% why?  This only facilitates our redefining the limits of the existing process to 6 sigma which somehow at times  have an issue with it. The narrowing to 6Sigma doesn’t talk about the distribution how it should be for each sigma. If the whole population is close to the center in control charts we call it hugging the center. We don’t call that as a statistically controlled process. What should we call a heightened peack near the center in a six sigma process?

    0
    #181690

    Sankar
    Participant

    I strongly feel this 1.5 sigma shift was a goofie to pitch sig-sigma sale stronger by Motorla as it need not be verified by any Scientific panel like in publication of papers. In the case of Walter Shewarts Control chart it is very clear, the control limits are matchable to specifications to 3 Sigma on both sides of the mean and any process can temporarily shift even after removing the assignable causes by 1/3 Sigma. This does not mean the problem needs to be taken by Six Sigma Specialists to fix a routine QC issue. The control chart/limits has to be redrawn to reflect your current processes. I feel this shift of control limits in mfg. was used conveniently by Six Sigma people to their convenient theory of 1.5 Six Sigma shift and there is no mathematical basis for this one like that for Shewart’s charts. If you redefine only Z tables and call it sigma table to call 3Sigma as 93 instead of 99.72 to say that Six Sigma is better is in the hope we can somehow reduce common causes variation to temporarily reflect higher sigma rating. How about all other tables like t.F. X2, Control limit formulaes formulated by Shewart, Cp, Cpk etc………Maybe we need to change Binomail, Poisson tables etc…….also to suirt 1.5 sigma shift in any probability we want to predict.
    Only great discovery from the part of Six Sigma is Define phase which impresses me is combining with money to make Top management act. Quality costing etc…..are only for books and no companies really know their CTQ. Even if it is 10-30% it is lesser than the CEO’s paycheque and overheads of Marketing, Financae and HR. When they didn’t act with SPC, DOE, TQM, ISO…….etc Six Sigma can claim for all the downfall of economy and jobs to implement Lean. Now including countries like India talk of reducing obseity and implementing Lean when they need to be  creating more jobs to reduce poverty.
    To the extent Six Sigma people talk about belts, they won’t conveniently talk about the existence of QA Manager, MR, QA Engineers CQE, CQA  etc……in organizations who have higher knowledge in QA than these temporary belt weilding people. What to do with them???Dump them with pink slips and replace with these belts to screw up the established processes and businesses or what?????? 

    0
    #181377

    Sankar
    Participant

    I have no doubt about the process capability or process in statistical process control means you used all your design, pilot plans in the process to remove all your assignable causes and took out production with Cp or Cpk of atleast 1.33 and above or e1.66 and above to meet the customer’s requirements. That means the process is established before taking out production and proved its consistency for a prolonged time of production. This has to be the beginning and historically delivered to the customers. Any new assignable or common cause which distrubed this long range capability alone should be taken as a Six sigma project and claimed. Anything else is a misuse of QA principles as anyone can start a sixsigma project for a routine QA problems and apply all the diagonstic techniques like a hospital to tell the patient tha he had a common cold due to rains. I think Walter Shewarts method and book is very clear on setting the limits etc., 

    0
    #176398

    Sankar
    Participant

    Dear K.Bhupathy,I also need the sample Equipment FMEA; Pls. send if
    you haveThanks and regards,Ganesh
    [email protected]

    0
    #176397

    Sankar
    Participant

    Dear Ricky Smith
    I would like to have a sample FMEA thro’ Email –
    [email protected]; or [email protected]; say for
    rotating equipments like Pump (Centrifugal),
    compressors, etc. Regards,Ganesh.S
    ====================

    0
    #176396

    Sankar
    Participant

    Dear…Can you send me / suggest source to get FMEA
    library for Simple centrifugal Pump in *.xls format
    or so?
    thankful if you can reply to [email protected],
    Ganesh.S

    0
    #160203

    Sankar
    Participant

    I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH ONE SUCH COMPLETED PROJECT ALONG WITH THE RESULTS ACHIEVED.F

    0
    #117544

    Sankar
    Participant

    Hi
    Check this link to know the answer.
    https://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c010701a.asp
    Thanks
    Ganeshps

    0
    #111037

    Sankar
    Participant

    Then Why should I calculate LCL as anything towards ‘0’ is prefered.

    0
    #108932

    Sankar
    Participant

    Dear Zack,
    Could I please have a copy of C&E matrics?  My email: ID: [email protected]
    Thanks and regards,
    Ganesh Rama, Sr. Service Delivery Consultant, Sydney, Australia.

    0
    #107505

    Sankar
    Participant

    Pls email me the info for “why sample = 30”

    0
    #94608

    Sankar
    Participant

    Intimate Fashions an apparel company based in South India,(Chennai).

    0
    #80051

    Sankar
    Participant

    Dear Madam/sir,
    ICICI Bank Ltd., India’s second largest bank, has taken up the Six Sigma initiative in a big way. The bank has started the process in all aspect of its operations.
     
    Besides ICICI Bank, Wipro Ltd. is the other company which has started the process.
    Regards
    Ganesh

    0
Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)