iSixSigma

Gary Cone

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 252 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #194624

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @JC It’s pretty easy.

    If you want results, ask for evidence and a guarantee. You’ll only find two providers in this category.

    If you just want training, almost anyone will do.

    0
    #194623

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Hey I’m pretty sure Chris is evidence of the shift.

    0
    #193732

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Very profound. Was there a question here?

    0
    #193726

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Do your own homework.

    0
    #193676

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    The “universal” certification is not known and the organization is not respected. It’s just a scam.

    0
    #193659

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @wbjohnson the key word is only.

    @MBBinWI Your answer, as usual, is correct. BUT, the truth is no phone should be shipped without finding out how the process can let 8% escape to a inspection prior to shipment. The is the real issue with the CQE, they talk prevention, but emphasize containment.

    And where is the R&R on this inspection? How do you know any result can be trusted?

    0
    #193613

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Robert-Jackson Good to see you standing up for integrity. What were your credentials anyway?

    0
    #193519

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto @MBBinWI I’ve heard of Death by Chocolate and Death by PowerPoint, I think you guys are in danger of creating a new category – Death by Metaphor.

    @RobFioto Thank you for the promotion from one of the guys walked out of Allied and a sub contractor who was brought in later to “Yes. I know of Mr. Cone’s pedigree and contributions. ” I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. I am a lucky guy who had the right education at the right time and I was willing to work my butt off and also smart enough to support people smarter than me – like MBBinWI. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Rob, your history is a bit tainted. I have respect for people like Dr. Harry and Dr. Hill (I don’t know or know of Vinny Tuccillo, but I see he is a VP at Honeywell). Honeywell, like Motorola, is a shadow of what it once was. They were purchased by Allied, by the way, the Honeywell name was retained because of brand equity.

    Motorola failed when they changed leadership. AlliedSignal failed when they let GE come in and take over. The Allied BB’s and MBB’s were and still are head and shoulders above their GE counterparts and Larry let his GE buddies bring their arrogance to bear and then did not close the deal with GE. That was when the real exodus from Allied began. GE started floundering when Welch left.

    Common thread? Change of or loss of leadership. Always has been and always will be. It’s culture and it’s the underlying system.

    Yes about Dr. Harry. He has lots of documentation and the contract part is all true. There have always been great promotors in all human ventures, that’s Dr. Harry. There have always been great implementers that, when given political coverage, do amazing things. And there have always been great back scene guys (you know the champion role) like Richard Schroeder. He was the genius at Allied, GE and 100 others before SSA imploded and the real reason for success of Dr. Harry and people like you and me. Rich continues to play that role today, but with a more rational life and a smaller trusted group around him. The difference between Harry and Schroeder? When you need someone to have your back, call Rich.

    Which brings me back to our friends at the DoD and their playmates in Washington. I am glad that the L6S folks are fighting the good fight, but they haven’t changed the culture and they can’t change the system from where they are sitting.

    Just like 6S did not start with Motorola (Juran documented the template in 1964), the quest for reform and efficiency did not start in the DoD in the early George Group work or in the reformatted work in 2009 which you apparently had a hand in. DARCOM (1970’s term that is probably outdated) had a school through Texas A&M that taught me all of the methods now called 6S. The disposition of the school? Budget cuts in 1976 put 105 well educated engineers loose in industry after the gov’t had paid for their Masters. The goal of the school? Effectiveness and efficiency of the military supply chain. I would have been loyal if they had been loyal to me – you know, that leadership thing.

    0
    #193510

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI Several including Dr. Harry, Steve Zinkgraf, Mike Carnell, Tom Whitney, and me were not certified. All but Dr. Harry were part of the best improvement rate in all of Motorola from 1986 – 1991 and went on to help several other companies before consulting.

    But you knew that.

    0
    #193501

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto A MBB who reports unsubstantiated numbers? I can’t wait to hear from your friends in DoD. Hopefully they will actually speak fro data. I suspect they won’t call. What did Dr, Harry have to say?

    Why don’t we call a truce until I hear from your friends? Perhaps you actually have something of value to share?

    0
    #193499

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @spazwhatsup I agree with most of what you say. A couple of thoughts –

    1) We, as consultants and employees, cannot control the objectives of Leadership. We can only act with knowledge and integrity and be willing to lose our jobs if asked to do something that compromises integrity. There were a load of good people who sacrificed their hearts and souls to improve the Braking business from 1994 (probably 1992 but I wasn’t there) until the sale to Bosch. Bosch purchased a business that was better than it was in 1994, but certainly not good. You cannot build a sustainable culture change with 6S and strong leadership (Bossidy was strong, one of the three strongest leaders I’ve met). It takes a strong system; call it TPS, TPM, Danaher Business System, whatever. Everyone must be trained on how to do their job, everyone must know the strategy and how they contribute, and most importantly Leadership can’t make decisions away from the culture for convenience.

    2) There was no GE documentation prior to the AS rollout. Allied stated in the fall of 1994, GE started in the fall of 1995. It is well documented that Bossidy interested GE in 6S when running Welch’s annual Leadership session in Palm Beach in 1995.

    0
    #193496

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto No false statements were made, I am not a MBB because I was doing this before the terms showed up. I was there on day one of AlliedSignal as employee number 4 of SSA but took my own contract one month in. Please have the LSS PMO contact me, you think it will change the unbelievable claims? It only explain what liberties are being taken.

    @spazwhatsup You might remember that Lean and Six Sigma were being used (quite successfully) to make the automotive businesses more attractive for a sale because Automotive does not give the kind of margins Bossidy desired. The exodus was to avoid being left without a job. I only know about 20 of the > 600 BB’s that went to consulting.

    0
    #193481

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @robfioto The standards of our profession do apply to both of us. You see BS, you call it.

    Your claims from your innovation nonsense are pretty unbelievable too, but let’s stick to your ROI claims. When challenged, you defer, you insult, you wimper for help from iSixSigma. Just answer the simple question – show us how a 700x ROI is derived? I’ll settle for a 500x, but you probably can’t do that either.

    You are self promoting.

    0
    #193471

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Do a little research Rob, and you will see I had responsibility for Lean (cycle time reduction in those days) and Six Sigma at Motorola Automotive on the day Six Sigma was named. I was doing and teaching this before it had a catchy name. We were also doing Lean on day 1 long before Michael George claimed to invent L6S.

    Instead of you sounding like a broken record, walk us through the calculations for any one of your 700X ROI projects. For giggles, take us through one of the 1000x projects since their must be more than a few if you are averaging 700x. For simplicity purposes, let’s use $100,000 for the fully burdened cost of your GS12-14 BB. It’s a little low, especially in areas like Dallas or Washington, but will help make your ROI number higher.

    Come on Rob, show us how it works. SGiven your background, this should be a walk in the park for you.

    0
    #193467

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto I made the comment of cooking the books.

    You know like the unbelievable 700X ROI. Rob, you probably have something to offer but not by claiming things that are not real.

    Let me remind you of the standard for ROI reporting since before your first training at Allied. Total cost of running the project (manpower and material) and first 12 months savings starting when the project is in the Control Phase. I suspect people are fudging both ends of the equation.

    You do remember having a consistent measurement is important, don’t you?

    0
    #193464

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Your profile says you are a MBB through RACE University which did not exist at the time of Allied and Bossidy.

    Which is it?

    And by the way the savings at Allied were real and the stock holders rewarded Larry and team handsomely for it. Don’t know about Raytheon but that was Air Academy, I have respect for their founders and don’t believe they would cook the books as you are implying is happening on your watch.

    0
    #193462

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    No one was walked out, must be one of the rumors you’ve picked up over the years like the 700X ROI. I worked for Larry and Rich Schroeder from Dec. 1994 through 1998.

    Not part of SSA except for one month at the onset of the Allied work. Have your friend Mikel explain what happened.

    I welcome you to stick around, let’s just start talking about reality.

    Can I read your dissertation?

    0
    #193460

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    1) I read just fine, that how I knew your claims were unbelievable.
    2) Are you claiming to have been a consultant for Bossidy?
    3) A good consultant knows nonsense when they hear it.

    0
    #193458

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    1) yes I can read
    2) no I am not a MBB
    3) spending time on a boat will not make your claims less comical. Want to go diving with me?

    0
    #193456

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Now we are getting somewhere. Savings that don’t make the bottom line are not savings. We can now stop talking the 700x nonsense.

    And now to claim that it’s because of the politicians? Come on, they are too busy playing in their own sandbox. And to claim they spend Raytheon’s and AlliedSignal’s money too?

    You’ve come on here for comic relief, right?

    0
    #193453

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto You are the one giving “data”, explain the 700x, don’t defer me to some Pentagon official.

    The number is not believable.

    0
    #193450

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto I wasn’t really interested in your academics, I can see that on Linkedin.

    It was more of a rhetorical question given that you claim so much including 700x ROI’s. It doesn’t pass a sanity check.

    My question is do you really believe your own claims?

    0
    #193432

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Rob, there is no ranting on my part.

    As far as the my comment, you have come on here representing the DoD BoK, if you represent anything less, you need to clarify. You claim responsibility back to 2009.

    The claims are not believable

    0
    #193425

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Hey everybody do the math on this.

    $50 billion since 2009

    700x ROI

    Must mean the DoD is spending a total of less than 300 FTE’s on all work, this includes all project work.

    Rob, I think you don’t understand ROI.

    0
    #193424

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    700x is pure nonsense, someone play accounting games.

    And yesterday’s needs? What is different? Effectiveness and efficiency have not changed.

    I do agree with the need for one BoK, but evolved by the user community? You might want to involve some adult governance.

    I’ve interviewed several people lately coming out of your deployments, I can’t in good conscious hire any because their knowledge is less than a good GB.

    0
    #193403

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto God, motherhood, and apple pie. Wave the flag and claim BB projects are going on under fire. Really?

    Rob, let’s start talking reality. The numbers in DoD are much lower and the opportunity is much higher. How much money still gets spent every year just so the next budget isn’t smaller? You are working in an entrenched system. This is like a 12 step program, the more you insist you are a model, the more you will not make real progress.

    If you want to really impress us tell us what was changed in the BOK and why.

    0
    #193402

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Not trivial, but the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are somewhere south of 6,500. So you are saying L6S saved thousands. Sounds like an exaggerated, unsubstantiated claim.

    And as I said in another thread $50 billion sounds like a lot until you realize it’s multiple years against a several trillion per year spend.

    And your answer to sales forecast accuracy. You think anyone believes you know anything about it given your answer?

    Rob, its appears you have suddenly popped up here as the alpha and the omega of L6S. I’ll give you a hint, you establish credibility here by giving good advice, not by buffaloing people into believing the DoD BOK is something of value or claiming a savings that turns out to be < 1% is a 700x ROI.

    You must think we are stupid.

    0
    #193397

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto $50 billion for an effort that has been going on for over a decade against a yearly budget of several trillion? The number sounds big without context.

    0
    #193395

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Yea, way too funny.

    Why would anyone care about something developed by the Department of Defense? Have they got extraordinary business results to show for the work?

    0
    #193394

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I can’t imagine that it’s really a challenge. What was predicted, what was accomplished. What else would you want to do?

    0
    #193364

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @ginagentile2000 Since I’m on a leadership bender, let’s recognize that tollgates are not for the belts. So the answer is yes, I would allow a change agent with demonstrated skill to skip all tollgates if the leadership is not scheduling regular reviews.

    I also don’t think it’s at end of a phase since anyone who has ever really done this in an aggressive environment knows, the phases are not clear and distinct. The reviews should be regularly scheduled and heavily attended by site leadership. Any who takes an answer of “I’ll be in the _________ (fill in the blank) phase four weeks from now” deserves what they get. The answer should be clear as to activities to be undertaken, and committed progress to be made. The review should start with “this is what I committed to four weeks ago and either a) this is what I learned, or b) I faced these barriers and this is what my champion did to help me get back on track”.

    Leadership also has to act immediately and decisively on barriers. And if the barriers are brought up for the first time in a review, the change agent and their champion should be advised of appropriate behavior publicly in the review.

    0
    #193363

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Bob Page Although this sounds like a homework problem, the problem is clear lack of leadership. If leadership makes time available and reviews progress, improvement happens. If management puts goals out and then is surprised when they drop by occasionally, they shouldn’t be in their jobs.

    The tools recommended or any structure reinforced by the culture can help, but nothing can overcome managers who are not leaders.

    There are tools to help with especially the folks who touch the people who actually do work, but they are not the ones mentioned.

    0
    #193349

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @malibujim To answer the question you asked %tolerance has nothing to do with how you chose your parts, your measure is not good for your spec. Period.

    The question everyone is answering is your method of choosing parts makes the other number %Study totally meaningless. You inflated the denominator which makes the result artificially small. It’s a common trick for people who only want a good number.

    0
    #192980

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @mike-carnell @twhitney99

    Wow.

    You guys do know that this stuff doesn’t sell on Wall Street or in Fortune 500 boardrooms, don’t you?

    Mike. as you know I think the QS and Management System are one in the same. Otherwise, you wind up with a group of totally ineffective Quality Auditors doing irrelevant sh** in the name of ISO (fill in the blank).

    Tom, I agree with you on Welch. The thing that I think you underestimated is most wanted to be treated that way. The Eurythmics had it right (Sweet Dreams).

    0
    #192928

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Somewhere in my barn, I’ve got the old policy along with the internal audit we once did as well as the original flowchart of the tool usage that became known as BB.

    Got Juran, Crosby, and Dr. Harry tapes as well.

    I tried to auction it all on EBay a few years ago but the best I could get is giving someone $100 to take them from me.

    And yes Brother Whitney, the system is more important but not as sexy and much harder to sell than instant gratification.

    0
    #192921

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @twhitney99

    PS – I hear a rumor that you are getting chances to affect the system these days. This is probably intentional.

    0
    #192920

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @twhitney99

    Amen, brother Tom.

    This is precisely the reason Six Sigma consulting is best as an implementation offering – Help the customer see what is possible, show the customer how to solve those problems which have been long accepted as unsolvable, teach the thought process to the customer’s best analytical talents, teach process discipline to everyone especially front line leaders, and teach the customer what sustainability looks like (that nasty QS stuff).

    Those that lead with training will never transform an enterprise.

    Just my experience.

    0
    #192912

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Hey Mike’s tapes were worth watching just to learn about the ShopSmith of Statistical Tools.

    The little twerp with the lipstick was pretty funny too.

    0
    #192907

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Praveen, did you actually listen to what those links you posted say?

    You said – “At the least, Bill must be a genius for taking old statistical tools and bundling them into Six Sigma package”

    This is false. I have the original flow charts showing linkage and strategy of using tools. The contributors to the tool set has become known as Six Sigma included John Lupienski, Dr. Harry, Mike Carnell, and Mario Perez-Wilson. Mario was the first to actually put course materials to it. Bill’s contribution was the linkage of reliability to rework and it was very cool that the Comm Sector scrapped boards rather than reworking them when they hit a 95% yield and could prove it was ultimately a cost savings. Bill was also hung up of the width of the t distribution for samples of 4. It takes stats, which I know you don’t do, but it’s easy to figure out how this was really the origin of the 1.5 shift.

    You also said – “We all are proudly showing his work in our credentials and making money off Six Sigma”

    This is also false. Bill’s work are not your credentials, they are exclusively the credentials of Bill.

    You earlier said you guarantee 90% reduction without stats. This is also nonsense as it can’t be done across an enterprise. You may get it in a pocket like a back office operation but that’s all.

    Praveen, you would do well to stop embarrassing yourself. There are too many people on here that are real that were there contributing.

    0
    #192891

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @PraveenGupta

    Praveen, I am sorry you see my statement of facts as self promotional. They are not. Nor are they an attack. They are just a reflection of my experience.

    Non-statistical Six Sigma can’t be anything more than the seven basic tools and they needed to be augmented at Motorola and they need to be augmented today.Yes we can get some traction early in the transactional side without them, but augmentation is needed within six months if you really want to improve.

    Just a clarification of Bill’s role. He contributed the phrase Six Sigma, he articulated clearly that processes get worse after qualification (the 1.5 shift was his metaphor for this), and he was passionate about his work. He did not invent Six Sigma.

    As many of us on here can prove – Tom Whitney, Mike Carnell, John Lupienski, and our old friend Dr. Mikel Harry – all of the things called Six Sigma were already being done before Bill gave it a catchy title. I personally learned all the tools between 1972 and 1976 and really learned to use them as a strategy between 1980 and 1984. All of the people cited above plus Steve Zinkgraf were the ones who helped me learn. I never learned anything from Bill but had great debates with he and Pete Peterson in the mid 80’s. I don’t remember seeing you there however.

    I am fairly sure it is you who is self promoting by using the “we” word for things that happened at Motorola and trying to impress us with your son’s school in Andover and what you learned there. By the way I learned the same things from my parents as did most of us.

    0
    #192882

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Straydog @PraveenGupta

    Straydog, I agree with your criticism of what many do in the name of Six Sigma or even worse Lean Six Sigma. The same criticisms have to be leveled at Lean and TPM (the label given to Lean by many companies including Unilever and P&G).

    I can show changed culture and bottom line results at my customers – most recently tripled productivity over historical numbers, production capacity up by >20%, and 3% to the bottom line after much of the savings were channeled to increased marketing spend. This is a Fortune 50 company.

    I don’t know what Praveen can show with his non statistical approach, but I doubt it’s much.

    Praveen, we take exactly the opposite approach. We make sure change agents have the math skills, it is probably the reason we teach this approach to mainly Engineers and Financial types. Where the work force lacks skill, we incorporate into job training. Results are the best way to convince non-believers. The best endorsement we get (and we get get it all the time) is the people who tell us they like their job better now.

    I’d appreciate if you would explain how to teach statistical thinking without teaching statistics. It sounds like pure snake oil to me.

    0
    #192835

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Hey Tom, if you want me to agree with that I need to know how much money it’s worth to you. I have a couple of arrogant Dr.’s offering a lot.

    0
    #192816

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Sorry Trish, but –

    “Beer-themed web sites, brewing organizations and even “beer writers” are fond of quoting Franklin and his supposed love of beer — “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” But after recently hearing a lecture by Chicago-based brewing historian, Bob Skilnik, that convincingly asserts that Franklin was writing about rain, its nourishment of grapes, and ultimately, its conversion into wine, Stevens decided to do his part in correcting this historical inaccuracy.”

    0
    #192808

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Thank you Praveen,

    I am also glad you are doing well. I will look at your current work. Thanks for sharing.

    Here are links to my current work –

    https://www.isixsigma.com/new-to-six-sigma/deployment/deployment-planning-video/

    http://www.gpsqtc.com/

    0
    #192801

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @twhitney99 Are you trying to say that working a project is not the same as fixing the system?

    0
    #192800

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @PraveenGupta Thought 1 -Too bad Motorola’s Six Sigma did not survive poor leadership.

    Thought 2 – Six Sigma did not give the wonders in isolation – Cycle Time Reduction (Lean), Participative Management (respect for people), Aligned reward systems, and an environment where innovation flourished played at least equal roles to 6S. Why don’t you tell people about all of the initiatives on the card that was given to every Motorola employee?

    Thought 3 – Six Sigma is just a buzz word (phrase) that has legs because of all of the really hard working creative people that have embraced a method that has it’s roots in the 1960’s and Deming and Juran.

    Thought 4 – the thought process worked well 50 years ago and will work well 50 years from now. The need for the thought process will also exist 50 years from now.

    Thought 5 – the practice of Six Sigma is equally filled with really bright intelligent hard working people and people who think they have found a free ride – just like every other human endeavor. The hard working folks give 6S legs, the free riders give 6S a bad rap.

    Praveen, are you still conjuring sigma levels?

    0
    #192731

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @clapper1 @Trish Beware of people who say things like “I remember learning somewhere’. The 25% advice is terrible in light of the tools at our disposal.

    Trish, follow the advice of MBBinWI. If you learn something but are uncomfortable explaining it with a chart with variable limits, deal with it and ask for advice when the time comes.

    0
    #192705

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @jandjnelson For starters MSA doesn’t necessarily mean GR&R. MSA means verifying the accuracy of the data. In this case physical observation vs the automated data would be the route. That and examining the data to see if it’s rational – i.e. no times less than what’s possible, no times beyond the realm of possibility. You should also examine the distribution, it should be skewed right but be relatively smooth (no big breaks in the data).

    0
    #192699

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Twhitney99 Hey thanks for showing up here, this place actually needs someone who is passionate about fixing the system.

    @Mike-Carnell I didn’t skip a beat with Cpt, it looked right to me.

    Just a small history lesson here, there was a group of us who derived what has come to be called Cpm at least two years before the article in the Journal of Quality Technology (I think July 1989) that named it. We called it Cpt. The group included me, Mike and a guy named John Lupienski (famous in Western NY for good and bad reasons). We did it after reading Quality Engineering by Taguchi and challenging why his computations were not right. We found his standard deviation used target, not x-bar. We called his standard deviation s sub t (sorry hard to do subscript on here) meaning standard deviation with respect to target, and Cpt meaning capability with respect to target. Taguchi thought that a value of 1.33 or higher was all that was needed and in the subsequent 2+ decades I’ve not seen a case where he was wrong.

    0
    #192672

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell @Mike-Cyger Yea, it’s embarassing to be smoked by one of those NW territory garage band types.

    I am serious about the video, study “It Might Get Loud”, I think they have the formula for us.

    0
    #192670

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell @MBBinWI Can I join your esoteric drinking session? We’ll video it.

    We’ll put it up for bid between iSixSigma, YouTube, and Hulu. Whoever we have to pay the least to is where we’ll put it.

    FYI – Upgrading Lighting, Camera, and mike. I was shamed by Cyger’s technical superiority. I figured my 2 1/2 year old MacBook Air could smoke anything Cyger had. Unfortunately I was wrong.

    0
    #192621

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @michaelcyger. So to finally answer your question, we don’t sell quality, we sell bottom line enablers.

    What does the customer get? As much as they will let us (remember the question of why are you being nice to me?). They always get bottom line, rational metrics and measurement systems, and happier workers where we have touched. They will also get a robust quality system if there is a rational person to have the discussion with.

    Hint – without a robust QS, nothing is sustainable. But man is it a hard sell, not sexy and a lot of work.

    0
    #192616

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Steve.

    Start by getting a better FMEA template. It should be a thousand point scale. Severityxoccurancexdetection. Which of the three are you not using?

    Fixing the system is the logical thing to do, you see the holes in logic and technology. Our tools cannot solve a poorly conceived process, it has to be redone.

    In the meantime try QC3 from Minitab. Easier to use by orders of magnitude than Visio.

    0
    #192615

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI 21 fairly coherent posts before you take us down this hole!

    I think it’s a new record for any of the incarnations of iSixSigma. Break out the champagne!

    And for what it’s worth, the video will be great if Mike can edit out all of the ahs and you knows.

    No Brue parody this one, I didn’t go for the cheap laughs or wear lipstick or rouge. I gave reasonably intelligent answers.

    I know, I was surprised too.

    0
    #192608

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @joanambrose Ari can be seen many nights a week busing tables at the Roadhouse. I want to do that job.

    0
    #192605

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban On Jack Welch, yes many tried to follow his lead and many GE folks rose above their station at their next job because many CEO’s thought they could be the next Jack Welch just by doing Six Sigma. They missed all of the stuff that had been done for the preceding 15 years. GE defectors also never saw the early stuff (half life of a GE Professional was < 5 years in those days), so they went merrily to their next job and proclaimed "I know your problem, you need to be GE" and fell flat on their face.

    These days I am as impressed with a GE MBB claim as I am a MBB from Villanova – I usually pass on either unless there is something else compelling in their story.

    Look at GE's stock price today. Jack got them through the tech crash of the late 90's basically unscathed, Jeff Immelt has not faired as well and no one actually wants to be like GE. Jack has faded, now everyone wants to be like Steve Jobs, but they aren't that either. By the way, Jeff Immelt may be doing everything right, but he's not Jack Welch.

    The new arrogance on the block appears to be coming from packaged goods companies where their exec's who have never worked anywhere else in their life, defect and announce "I know your problem, you need to be (fill in the blank). I won't name names but the most aggressive is the one that was famous for 10 years of double digit growth and had that CEO leave last decade. They will fall flat on their face too. Every company is different and nobody cares how you did it at (fill in the blank). In the meantime, a lot of people get hurt.

    I agree with you on the rest.

    0
    #192604

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I agree with Monty Python as well. Been a fan since the Flying Circus days. John Cleese had his advertising company located in Northbrook, IL in the late 80’s and we would see him at lunch occasionally. Not as funny on the streets of Illinois.

    0
    #192601

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban Selling Lean is the same as selling Six Sigma. You have to get the attention of the folks who guide the reward system. And by the way the question was on selling Quality, not Lean or Six Sigma. When you only have one tool … Lean and Quality are not the same thing. Neither is Six Sigma and Quality.

    Why the comment on Jack Welch? It’s like saying all who choose Lean are following Toyota from decades ago. Discounts human intelligence. No body follows Jack Welch anymore. Why would they and by the way he was the third great executive to embrace Six Sigma. Bob Galvin and Larry Bossidy preceeded him.

    Six Sigma has legs because of passionate, committed professionals and a network of CURRENT execs who have benefited from Six Sigma. I suspect it’s the same for Lean.

    And for those of us that understand and appreciate both and have been given the time to understand the company we are selling to, we lead with the most important to the company we are talking to at that point in time.

    I agree with your tweet from months ago about no such thing as L6S.

    0
    #192597

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI – I agree on the Allison part, pretty gross.

    And yes I do have more productive pursuits and would not target you if I didn’t. Now that Darth guy, I have an allergic reaction to him.

    0
    #192594

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban Goldman thinks the customer is the person investing in Goldman Sachs and the entire Leadership gets obscenely rewarded for it. Go call what they do poor quality, and no one at Goldman Sachs will hear a word you are saying. They will just write you off as a zealot.

    The problem isn’t they have poor processes, they probably have exquisite processes including the process called lobbying.

    The problem is their value proposition assuming anyone with any power to change thing thinks there is a problem.

    0
    #192592

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI Full disclaimer, Breakfast Club was filmed at a junior high school in Northbrook, IL right down the street from the Motorola facility I worked out of.

    Absolutely serious – four lessons that affect us:

    1) There is more wisdom in the team than the individual.
    2) There is more value in people than our blinders let us see. You have to talk to understand.
    3) The most profound line in any movie I’ve seen – Question “Why are you being nice to me”, Answer “Because you are letting me”.
    4) Put a mean self centered person into a critical process, the system may go to hell. The corollary to this is put a wrong person in charge, it saps the energy of the team and diverts their activity to something other than what is wanted.

    You shouldn’t let me know you are so easy to distress, I just might divert my energy to distressing you. You know – path of least resistance. ;-)

    0
    #192590

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban Goldman Sachs quality doesn’t suck, Their values, vision, and mission do. Goldman Sachs are one of the best at doing what they do. Their value system is money – their money and as long as others continue to flow their money to them, it will not change.

    0
    #192584

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell Best one I ever saw was Breakfast Club

    0
    #192583

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban We have an obligation to make our practioners better corporate and world citizens, not just preach to the choir.

    0
    #192580

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @michaelcyger A somewhat jaded view on Paul’s question –

    It’s hard to sell quality because –
    1) Most people think they know what it is (and they are wrong).
    2) Most Quality professionals are not well educated in Quality.
    3) People who have been taught Lean and/or Six Sigma think they are instant Quality professionals (and they are wrong).
    4) Quality Systems are not sexy and the understanding of them has been degraded by ISO and QS 9000.
    5) Business professionals are being taught to be profitable by tricks or spending cuts (including people).
    5) Where is the next Deming or Juran? It’s certainly not George, Harry, Shook, Liker, Womack, or the myriad of others out there promoting me me me or trying to be a social media rock star.

    The problem with Quality is that it is hard, disciplined like Lean, analytical like Six Sigma, and has to be flavored generously with good business sense, good common sense, and unshakable integrity. Turns out there are too many easier ways to make money starting way back when we started exporting jobs to enrich executive bonuses at the expense of loyal employees. Who needs process knowledge when we can get it cheaper in China and take home a few million and think of ourselves as a genius?

    0
    #192578

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mark-Graban I too, have spent a lot of time around Ann Arbor and consider Ari a business genius and a friend. He speaks to my company’s gathering and caters an annual party we do for about 300 people. I also use most any excuse I can think of to get to the Roadhouse or the Deli. I make excuses on football weekends to head to the Roadhouse instead of tailgating.

    I read your blog and have two thoughts.

    1) You see Lean in Ari’s words, you are discounting Ari’s contribution to business. What to pick up from Ari is passion and the ability to live up to his message while acknowledging he (and Zingerman’s) is not perfect. If only the leadship of our customer’s had the same mix of passion and humility …
    2) Back to Paul’s original question, you don’t have to sell quality to Ari. It is a given in his words and actions. It is a given in the way his people are trained and reinforced. Your comment on replacing with a robot is spot on, if leaders aren’t passionate, consistent and visible they might as well be robots.

    Think about the “legends” of Lean or Six Sigma – there is a tone and a way business is done that is set by the Leaders from the top. How do we find, teach, or sell that?

    PS – Those of you who do not know why Mark and I are passionate about Zingerman’s can get a taste of the best food available on earth @ zingermans.com. Also the book Mark reference is not Ari’s first book, he has a series of books about food, I suggest The Guide to Better Bacon.

    PSS – Zingerman’s mission statement – We share the Zingerman’s Experience Selling food that makes you happy Giving service that makes you smile In passionate pursuit of our mission Showing love and caring in all our actions To enrich as many lives as we possibly can.

    0
    #192537

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI The good news about the “theory” of the 1.5 shift is it would be next to impossible to prove. So as long as people focus on all the hand waving and use of words intended to intimidate, the mystical 1.5 lives on.

    But the opposite side of the argument is that it is extremely easy to disprove. All you need is one concrete empirical data set that shows something else. We’ve had customers that had less than 0.5 shift over a 5 year period. We’ve had dozens around 0.5 as their process knowledge matures.

    Their control methods? Pure Lean

    0
    #192489

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @tomack No way you offended me. You’ll be crystal clear when that happens.

    0
    #192429

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnell I agree with the coaching, I just refrain from giving a dunce cap and sitting them in the corner for the duration of the meeting.

    It was certainly more fun before.

    0
    #192415

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Straydog I have to agree with my friend MBBinWI. It’s like the thing they tell you in all sorts of training – “there are no stupid questions”.

    There are, you are just not supposed to judge them in an environment of openness and trust.

    A top down, authoritarian, no real knowledge of the job type situation being described here? There are really, really uninformed questions and demands. Some people would refer to that as stupid..

    0
    #192414

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    You are asking Excel to tell you the z value where everything is included (100%). I theory that value is infinity, that’s what the error is telling you. You also don’t use a percentage in Excel, you you use a proportions – 100% would be 1.

    To see what Excel is doing, put in values of .01 and .99 then .05 and .95, then .1 and .9, …

    You will understand the function, but Excel will never be able to figure out infinity.

    0
    #192381

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @tomack I guess I’d like to know what you think you are doing. If you are trying to guide us to your company’s solution, it’ll blow up in your face. You’re a guy who was working on a MBB six months ago and now you work for a company who tries to can innovation. I hardly think that makes you an expert. Go read books written about innovation in the past few years – most are a joke – especially those written by guys who run Six Sigma consultancies. Only one guy ever got away with that trick when he claimed to be the first to combine Lean and Six Sigma.

    A company without discipline cannot install a robust system now in anything. Six Sigma or Lean or DfSS or Innovation isn’t something you just go to, you have to learn your way there. The best consultants can help you find the path and guide you for the first part of the journey. They can even describe the solution to you but until you can see it yourself, it’s just parlor tricks

    0
    #192376

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I know I am violating your request but I say you never worry about MSA until you verify you have respected the most basic rule with respect to test engineering.

    Does anyone know what the basic rule is?

    MBBinWI, you can answer but you have to wait 15 hours like I did.

    0
    #192375

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @tomack Tom, I agree that we, as data driven businesspeople, have a chance to shape the future of any company. Note that I did not say Six Sigma practitioner because there are too many in the profession who are here for money not because it’s their passion. These folks shape nothing.

    I agree innovation is important but most companies need to start by fixing their broken systems. Lean and / or Six Sigma the way it is practiced does not necessarily fix systems. We in this community (some call it an industry but I disagree with that) need to start understanding robust systems instead of 3 -6 month BB projects or one week stand alone Kaizen events.

    After we fix our systems, we can talk about why companies aren’t smart enough to manage risk at the front end of the innovation pipeline or follow a disciplined review process (call it stage gate if you like). Most of the problem with innovation is we haven’t hired innovative people to do it and we don’t have the guts to say we can only afford x number of projects done well at any given time, so we need real decision making at the start and through out the process.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #192324

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Our largest customer, a Fortune 50 company, is going down that route with some suppliers and some of the logistics providers between them and their customers.

    0
    #192300

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Trish Peace, I think we are basically in agreement.

    And I have no idea if 6 years makes a difference, I just disagreed with the original assertion of over 20 years. I still do.

    Your link was interesting too. On the biography page it said 1996, on the company page it says 1995. Odd that they don’t have engineers, scientists, mathematicians, or stats folks that make up the vast majority of the L6S world.

    0
    #192296

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @Trish I know of George. I also know he was not involved with Six Sigma 20 years ago. Read your own link, there is no claim of anything prior to 1996. My company was also one of the prime consulting groups to GE in 1996 – we did eight of their equipment businesses, apparently George did some of their transactional stuff.

    If you had the choice, would you rather learn in a company truly transforming itself from people who have experience transforming some of the most notable companies on earth or an on-line course?

    0
    #192274

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @ctickel A few posts ago ago you asked that I give you and your colleague a break. A break from what? I offered to help you solve the problem that you only served up and said it was difficult.

    The group I called out can tell you how to answer your questions without capital, did you not want that offered?

    I am told you are a good guy but it is not at all clear what you are actually seeking since your very first post. Please help me.

    0
    #192259

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @mclayton200 I like the approach and the simplicity of the initial contact. So many want to go in with guns blazing and use a strange language and insist on a full blown implementation. The basic approach is we’ve got the solution, what’s your problem? Pretty dumb, and the executive who buys it deserves what they get.

    We too go in selling one of two things. A simple look at your business from which we can tell execs what impact is possible in terms of money and process metrics and even what work needs to be done. Or, we sell let us go solve your hardness problem, the one your organization has declared unsolvable. Selling a full blown anything or using unintelligible language makes no sense at all.

    So our elevator speech is simple – “We can make any process better as long as you are not trying to violate the laws of physics, which processes are your most important?”

    The trick is you’ve got to be able to stand behind those words. Most who feature training cannot.

    0
    #192255

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @ctickel I wonder if Y = f(x) requires that you understand the Y?

    The answer of course is yes and the idea that it is difficult to you and your colleague means you need help. There are several on here that can help – me, Mike Carnell, MBBinWI, …. but probably not Darth ;-)

    Do you want help or do you want to continue to think this is really an unsolvable problem?

    0
    #192253

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @BBinNC The assertion that “another 50% might be difficult and expensive is the SWAG and probably also an excuse all made without data.

    The benchmark for Six Sigma is 68% improvement per year sustained over several years. It was done by Motorola 1982 – 1991, AlliedSignal 1995 – 1999, GE 1996 – 2002. Each of these companies were dominant in their market in the last few years of the improvement effort – and then they changed leadership.

    0
    #192250

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I have to agree with the original poster’s concerns.

    I question Mr. Goodrich’s assertions that Villanova’s program is taught by BB and MBB’s that have been at it for over two decades which means they were at it by 1990. That is a very small and select group and I know most of them. None teach at Villanova.

    That’s what is really wrong. All the false claims. If the engagement starts with an exaggeration, do you think it gets better from there?

    Universities writing standards is no answer. What makes anyone think that a bunch of professors really know? Think of your own college education, very few come into the marketplace really knowing what to do. It’s the same with all the extra “education” being promoted these days.

    This stuff is best when regulated by aggressive industries – Motorola in the 80’s, AlliedSignal and GE in the 90’s, ? in the 2000’s. I’ll take any person that can prove they were in a position where change was demanded at any of those companies in those timeframes if they survived in the role for at least two years. It’s guaranteed they are good, their organizations would not let them survive otherwise.

    The problem is the three named companies were once good and are now turning our very poor BB and MBB’s now. The difference? Leadership changed.

    Can someone with a Villanova BB be good? Of course. Motivated people can learn from anywhere. Odds are they are not that good. I’ve interviewed thousands with similar backgrounds.

    0
    #192226

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    It’s Lean Six Sigma Academy LLC. And I don’t think you misspoke, just used the wrong name (again).

    Six Sigma Academy is the former company of Dr. Harry and now goes by SSA & Co. Rightfully or not, they are proud of their heritage and will take exception to being wrongfully flamed.

    0
    #192223

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Looks like it’s Lean Six Sigma Academy LLC. The guy does appear to be slippery as he refers to his work in 2002 as “Dr,” when he only received it (legit or not) several years later.

    0
    #192222

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @speedagent Your first post said Six Sigma Partners, now you have said Six Sigma Academy several times. You may want to correct before you get in over your head.

    0
    #192201

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @gaslinger Based on your two other posts, I have to assume you are fishing for work supporting on-line learning although that is not what your web-site says. Be careful because this forum is not to promote business, it’s to share knowledge.

    That said, there are good and terrible suppliers of virtual learning just the same as there are for face to face learning. Some people are trying to provide a valuable and needed service and some are just after the easy money. I put Moresteam in the first category and my impression of the folks I’ve interviewed from the others you mentioned is they are in the second category.

    But people who are really motivated to learn can learn from almost any source, including textbooks, or my favorite Managerial Breakthrough by Juran.

    It is preferred to have a guide and it is preferred to have face to face learning. I say this based on results. I have been involved in this form of learning for years and while most talk about their firm’s few million dollar savings last year, we can document several hundred millions for over half of the last 15 years. But we stack the deck in our favor. We seek Fortune 50 companies where the leadership is listening. We have a robust and simple way of getting right projects. And we only do training and support as a contact sport.

    The reality is many who seek to learn do not have the luxury of working for one of these companies or being selected if they do work for them. For those, companies like Moresteam (I have no relationship with them BTW, I just respect their founder and many of their employees) or developing a mentoring relationship through your local ASQ or …. is a rational way to go. Just be well prepared when seeking a job based on this route, you had better know your stuff.

    0
    #192200

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Crossed. You have the have an assumption of a homogeneous batch or your final analysis of the batch is flawed. It would be useful to verify that assumption.

    0
    #192190

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI Thank you for your question Mr. inWI.

    I think the advice in Minitab’s help menu is quite good. Look under general advice for GR&R studies.

    Too often, people have learned to use Destructive when it’s not appropriate because you will get a slightly better result.

    0
    #192182

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    What I know –

    1) Sample prep is everything including time, temp, etc.
    2) Lots of secondary methods are used because primary method is tedious and time consuming. Make sure correlation is high to the primary, y-intercept is not statistically different from 0, slope not statistically different from one.
    3) Measure often done by techs who think they have the best method, they need to mbe made to standarize.

    And no, it’s just attention to detail like any other industry.

    0
    #184875

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    What problem are you trying to fix?

    0
    #184870

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    No, that would be called regression.

    0
    #184864

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Multivari is for categorical inputs and continuous outputs. It’s a good
    tool in those conditions.

    0
    #184863

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Just differences in confidence levels. I spent a lot of time with some
    others involved with Six Sigma back in 1983-84 understanding
    Dorian’s techniques. The major learning was we just had to figure out
    his assumptions (never stated in Dorian’s materials – called Advanced
    Diagnostic Techniques in those days).Once you accept his assumptions – all else is statistically valid. He
    just made a cookbook with limited explanations.

    0
    #184852

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Good point Mario.None of Shainin’s stuff was really developed by him.He did a great job of wrapping a mystic around them.

    0
    #184549

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    And that was in the central time zone too!The site went down and I had to go get work to entertain myself. I
    wonder if I can fire them now that I have them all spun up.

    0
    #184539

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Welcome home.

    0
    #183989

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I believe that is correct

    0
    #183971

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Jonathon,Of course it’s public domain. It just equations for confidence levels for
    standard deviation.Juran has had something similar in his handbooks at least since the
    second edition.

    0
    #183970

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I agree with every thing he said except the part about Taguchi.Motorola’s bread and butter was the assembly of electronic
    components. There was a lot of literature in those days, from the
    likes of IBM and Martin Marietta, that said the things we repaired in
    our fulfillment process were an order or two more likely to fail in
    the field. Their initial work was about defect reduction, not
    variation reduction. Go look, the history is very clear on this point.Seddon’s points about systems are right on target. We should fix
    the system, not just train a bunch of people and tell them to go
    pick projects. Every effort should start with a system wide
    diagnostic and continuous improvement work should flow from
    there.

    0
    #183570

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    1. No we don’t agree2. It is not sematics at all. Cpk alone tells you nothing about how
    centered a process is. If you also know Cp you can figure it out.3. There is nothing to partially agree with. Your statement is wrong. 4. I did not ask you for examples of what needs to be capable. I
    am saying your wanting to discuss better than 3.4 per million is
    theoretical. Assuming your screws or solder is better than that,
    what about all of the others supporting the same fulfillment
    process?

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 252 total)