iSixSigma

Mike Carnell

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 6,327 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #243145

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @datasciencedweeb If you are using a software package check it to see if you can list 100% as a boundary.

     

    0
    #243144

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @rbutler Damn you are good at this.

     

    0
    #243097

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cseider We at least know they did better than the Texas Rangers. That is the interesting thing they play for months to come down to 2 teams that has one winner on a best of 7 games. Whatever happened to participation trophies?

    0
    #243094

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @arivera1 so without anyone answering the certification rates and without stratifying the various certifications by requirements you want to improve them? Are you wanting to improve the rate or the quality of the certification?

    0
    #243093

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @shanedixon What part of the insurance business do you believe is any different that what you have been doing? Pick a software company that has a stats package. Call them and ask for the package that has the tools for insurance companies.  Doesn’t exist because we all pretty much run stats around some observed vales and some expected values.

    Before you put a lot of effort into this try talking to some of the people in your audience and figure out what they want to know.

    1
    #243071

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @swatiaga Read the book Moneyball.

     

    0
    #243035

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @snooks98 You need to remember you have accuracy and precision. When you are doing precision I would not worry about agreeing with the clients colors i.e golden samples. You want to be the same type of paint particularly if you have a metallic finish. You will get variation that is not a gage issue from different locations on the sample. I would fixture the sample and the measurement device for the study. The point you want to make is will the device repeat and reproduce. Once you have it fixtured then do it again un-fixtured. Know you can figure how much variation is coming from the measurement device and how much due to location on the paint chip.

    Accuracy is going to be a typical study for bias but you want a known standard/golden sample.

    With the metallic finish I would fixture it and move the lighting around and change the wattage as well. There can be some very odd readings just from the way it is lit.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #243022

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @anthony2019 Why would you limit the topic to an SME? There is nothing about SS that makes it unsustainable at an SME or any other place. Sustainability is a function of your organization.  That has been documented all over the internet in terms of change management. Actually sustainability is an issue for any initiative to include Lean and SAP.

    0
    #243017

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BobFair 4 posts and you think you ruffled my feathers? This is like the old Jack Nicolson saying “What do I think about you? I don’t think about you at all.”  In roughly 3 hours you doubled your total lifetime posts ever, on iSixSigma. That is looking pretty out of control.  Time for you to spend time looking in the mirror checking your feathers and you probably need to switch to decaf.

    So you are worried about my research. I made my post by 1:40 pm and you answered 2 hours and 17 minutes later with knowledge about a lawsuit between Peter and Scot. That sounds a lot more like someone who already knew there was a lawsuit between them. That is an interesting piece of knowledge that for someone with no connections to this issue. How about I check with Peter and Scot and see when the last time was that they spoke with someone called Bob Fair or is there another name I should use to check?

    I have been in this Six Sigma business since 1988 at Motorola. I know a ton of people in the business. You want to know what me knowing Peter means in terms of this discussion? Nothing. Doesn’t mean a thing. Before Peter was ever in the certification business he worked with companies like 3M and GE, He is pretty well established in the SS community. A lot of us know him.

    Never have heard a peep about you. Any where. Doing anything. It brought this attachment to mind. Just for you.

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #242988

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BobFair Let me present some basic data that really frames your response.

    You joined iSixSigma on September 17, 2019

    Your post that involved a response to me was on September 17 2019 at 6:05pm the same day you joined.

    You have done a total of 2 posts as of this morning October 16, 2019. Basically you joined and logged on, did 2 posts and were never heard from again.

    You responded to Chris Paret’s original post from May 29, 2012. That is about a 7 year and 4 month old post.

    The last response to Chris’s post before yours was September 6, 2018. Just about a year before your post.

    What you want people to believe is that you joined iSixSigma and on the same day responded to an 88 month old post that had been inactive for 1 year. Posted twice on the same string and have posted nothing since.  In that event you posted in your words a “rant” of 1086 words. I do believe in coincidence I just haven’t seen one yet.

    I don’t believe this scenario for a minute. We have had the discussion of people posting under different names. You have chosen one that doesn’t show much on Google for someone who obviously thinks so much of themselves.

    This is obviously a game for you. I am done responding to you or what ever name you chose for your next post basically because this is free advertisement for CSSC. That old quote from Oscar wild “the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” We were lucky enough to have this “not be talked about” for a year. I have no intention of any more CPR for CSSC.

    I won’t play this game with you. As I said I am not in the certification business. I do not consider CSSC a competitor particularly when, as they have made the point, they are really in the white belt certification business.  Seriously? White belt?

    Here is a link from a legitimate company that is in the certification business and has the strength to do consulting work as well. People are free to read this and make up their own minds. The author has roots in the six sigma field and has done legitimate work and has been employed as a Master Black Belt. He has the correct pedigree to be offering certification.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/history-purpose-council-six-sigma-certification-peter-peterka/

     

     

     

    1
    #242668

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cmcardle Just to restate a point made earlier, This is a quote from W. Edwards Deming. “A common disease that afflicts management and government administration the world over is the impression that “Our problems are different.” They are different, to be sure, but the principles that will help to improve quality of product and of service are universal in nature.”

    I am not a big fan of relying on quotes to make a point. Typically when someone tries to kill you with quotes it is because they lack original thought of their own. Unfortunately your “we are different” comment is so common and so old Deming wrote about it decades ago.

    He also listed as an obstacle to improvement that people believe the only people that can help them is people who understand (have experience) with the problem. Basically we become incestuous in our belief of who can help us. If you look at your list of activities in your second paragraph there is one activity that is indigenous to “air cargo” So there is absolutely no point in truncating ideas and concepts to people who are in the same business you are in.

    If you look at people who deal in healthcare. They are always doing the we are different response because peoples lives depend on them. Really? If I am a jet engine mechanic on a 747-400 high density jet and I screw up there could be as many as 600 peoples lives at risk. Some one in healthcare, generally, does not have that many peoples lives in their hands due to one task.  That plumber out there installing a gas line into your house – same thing.

    Read a book called “All I Need to Know About Manufacturing I Learned in Joe’s Garage: World Class Manufacturing Made Simple.” You can see how ideas and concepts can be extrapolated between activities.

    0
    #242665

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jfelten775 Currently “ambiguity.” I am a consultant and we have opportunities and projects pretty much globally so there is no real schedule. Conference calls and phone calls can happen any time of the night. Things are winding down in one part of the world and starting up in another. You have to know what is a priority and work the priorities between interruptions.

    I try not to schedule much early in the morning. I nee an hour or so by myself to think about what I need to accomplish for the day and what I would like to accomplish for the day.

    When I was in a normal job it actually was not much different. You still have to have priorities. It used to drive me crazy when you would try to set up a meeting or conference call and ask about someone’s availability and they would tell you they already had something scheduled. Does that mean that is more important or are you just not willing to cancel something. A priority is exactly that and the schedule is always in flux to get results where they make a difference. So for me the day to day was always driven by priorities and being willing to tell someone you can’t/won’t do something because it isn’t a priority or it isn’t aligned with what you have been tasked to accomplish. Saying “no” is a skill that you need to be able to match against your list of priorities.

    Come time to stop it is based on getting done what needed to be done and staying until it is done.

    Probably not the answer you were looking for but for my personality type (Predictive Index) repeat tasks are the kiss of death for me.

    0
    #242607

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @carmeliajohn Oil and gas is a very large area. Is there a particular place in that chain you are looking? If you lok at the current issues in oil and gas and the oil and gas recession you have to understand cost is always going to be a huge issue. It is the basic “last man standing” mentality. You are in a commodity business. The market determines the price so your basic cost model is Market Price – Cost = your profit. There is always going to be that point where when your cost is equivalent to Market price you are break even. Your cost is higher than market price and you loose money. At the very least any cost reductions can have a significant impact on the oil and gas business. The other analysis you need to do is where is the leverage. You don’t want to sell a project on reducing the price of copiers leases for your office when you are paying $27,000 per day to have a drill rig on site. Find out what matters.

    0
    #242606

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @sheilaLopez There wasn’t a lot od documentation around Dorian Shanin. Last time I was anywhere near his classes they were asking for a confidentiality type of agreement if you took the class.

    One of the people who did document a lot of Shanin’s techniques over the years was Keki Bote. I haven’t read any of Keki’s stuff in a while but I think the bok that I felt has the most in it was World Class Manufacturing.

    1
    #242604

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Cherokee Welcome. I hope you find this a helpful place. I have done some work a very long time ago in Belfast with Shorts Brothers.

    0
    #242602

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @chebetz I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I had some IT issues and some other stuff that came up. I am seeing the same thing you are seeing

    1
    #242381

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    <p style=”text-align: left;”>@Darth none of that hard Corps stuff these days. I babysit grandchildren. That makes Six Sigma deoyments look simple. The up side is dealing with all the Champions over the years has prepared me very well for trying to reason with my 2 year old grandson.</p>
    The Lenovo was laid to rest today after lasting about 18 months, and after we had opened it up and removed the flash drive. 25 years and my first Lenovo and it dies. It hasn’t even been on one international flight. Not what they used to be.

    So FM is running across Washington in an Uber? I’ll bet that is some tough training.

    0
    #242358

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cseider i actuall cut and pasted a whole page of acronyms for ccpm. I asked a question with regards to its us in determining how many cows you can put on a certain amount of land. They use the acronym CCPM for that as well. I thought Katie took it down but i just screeed up posting it.

    0
    #242356

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth remember you? How cod we forget you. Without you here we have to answer a bunch of homework questions.

    I could be more active except my computer will not boot. That would be my LENOVO computer will not boot up. It is dead as in it responds to nothing. That was my LENOVO computer. Maybe someone from LENOVO will read this since they do not appear to be straining themselves making computers.

    Fake Mike is out running across the state of Washington. Considering all the nonsense that goes on here i would be running for the border as well. Idaho has to be looking pretty good about now.

    The days of the DF being the epicenter of the SS world may have passed us by. Nobody worries about fixing anything but everybody wants a certificate so HR will let them apply for a job. Actually we get some decent questions here. We have hit the point where a mutual aquaintance of ours sat down one weekend day in the morning and by that evening had 5 BB certs and 1 MBB cert. Not even worth throwing a chair about this.

    The good news is Katie is still with us.

    0
    #242267

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @katieBarry With my finely tuned cyber skills it always is a very real probability I screwed it up. Thanks for the reply. It was more of a Darth type post so probably better I didn’t get it on the site.

    0
    #242265

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @katiebarry I was under the impression you took a post down. Maybe I just screwed it up when I did it?

     

    0
    #242112

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @KatieBarry What? I thought it was clever.

    0
    #242083

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Kaled87 I read this a couple days ago and then read @rbutler comment and said that is good enough jest let it go. Unfortunately that is one of those questions that people ask that makes you want to ask them what rock they have been living under.

    Motorola introduced it in 1986 (31 years ago) but nobody really cared much back then. We were the first company to win the Malcolm Baldrige award in 1988 (29 years ago) so then it got some attention. We launched the Allied Signal deployment in 1995 (24 years ago) and General Electric in 1996 (23 years ago). At that point if you are speaking to someone who has zero knowledge of what has been going on in Industry for the last quarter century you are probably wasting time speaking with them.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #242049

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @gKerridge Component search will be interesting because you need to of the same thing – one good and one bad to begin with. You also need to be able to disassemble and reassemble. I have never taught component search as part of the Six Sigma curriculum but I love the technique.

    Multi-vari has complexities as well. We don’t do an exercise but I use data from a real life example.

    Paired data you can do with just 2 people throwing dice. If you use something with interactions you will get some pretty screwed up results that you probably won’t get to repeat.

    0
    #242048

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @yousif.hamzah you are welcome.

    0
    #242047

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @yousif.hamzah Welcome to isixsigma Discussion Forum.

    0
    #242046

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Asqcqe@juno.com The first time you hang up on an Automotive OEM you need to pack your stuff when you leave that night because they will have you fired by morning. That is the worst advice (I am seriously wanting to put a string of expletives in here just to make sure you understand how bad that advice was) I have ever seen provided on this forum and I have been posting here since 2001.

    I am the one that said there is no statistical jail but at no point did I say you controlled to the spec limits which is what you are suggesting with PreControl. First most automotive companies are looking for a Cpk of 1.33 minimum. If you use PreControl you will end up controlling to a Cpk of 1.0 (you are letting the process run rail to rail so 1.0 is the best you will get). Precontrol is a Shanin technique. That will have you in trouble with a lot of people in the automotive business that are adverse to those techniques although most don’t understand why.

    Should anyone need to sort product at an automotive OEM call Jeff Glowacki at Quality Liaison Service of NA out of Nashville. He is great at getting good people to sort parts and he is very good at dealing with irate customers.

    0
    #242045

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @blazn007 I have to agree with @cseider that this is a stupid question and poorly constructed.  Lets just walk through some logic. In most cases people have a hypothesis rattling around in their head but realistically you would derive that hypothesis from some pretty low level tools like 5why and fishbone diagrams. So lets say you do a Fishbone first and then do 5Why on your multi-voting result and based on that you derive a hypothesis. Once I have a hypothesis I would want to do some type data demographics and data analysis. Once I have done that I would go back and use data and logic testing to verify what my analysis produced (the word verify is pretty much an indicator it is the end).

    I have no clue if this is right or wrong in the eyes of someone who would ask such an inane question. Tell your instructor to start asing question that make sense or you won’t pay them.

    Just my opinion

    0
    #241747

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Straydog This goes back to 1996 and was a military contract. I have to watch exactly what I say on this. Two parts were glued together and the assembly was 100% defective. Management wanted it fixed and formed a team that one of our people was meant to facilitate. Luckily we chose a very kind and friendly person for this task. After couple team meetings of our 100% engineer team the chart flipped from 100% defective to 100% good and nobody had a clue what happened. Our guy happened upon a very nice woman who had her Xacto knife out and was whittling on one of those long stem cotton swabs. He asked her what she was doing and she was scared. We eventually made her a guarantee she was not going to lose her job for not following work instructions (she was almost in tears because if the auditors saw it she would be fired – so I was ecstatic about getting involved in this based on my love for auditors). She knew the fixture that held the two pieces together when they were being glued was wrong. She knew how to build a shim with a piece of cotton swab stick to make it work. We did a temp change to the paperwork while we got the fixtures modified.

    This is the issue I see with auditors: Audit theory, as I learned it, is a 2 step process: 1. Check for adequacy of the documentation 2. check for compliance to the documentation. Most auditors are fixated on step 2. I think they do that because that is very simple. The document says this are you doing it. You do not have to hire someone very smart to do that. Most people see auditing as a legislated activity so they want to hire cheap labor which is what they do.

    If you want step one you better have someone who has some pretty good process knowledge. I am not talking degree. I am talking experience and common sense so these are not going to be all that easy to find and most people with common sense don’t want to be an auditor.

    Just my opinion.

    1
    #241732

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jfelten775 Here is going to be your initial problem before you even get to management. Let’s say you identify a project. Now you need to approach the process owner about why you believe there is an issue in the area they are responsible for. Those conversations traditionally do not go well and without process owner support you are going to have a real issue with making a change at the end of the project. Just a note you will have to make a change at the end of the project otherwise if it does not change, then you actually have acomplished nothing.

    In your statement you said “ownership and management.” If you are in a privately held company it can be a real challenge particularly if you have the entrepreneur that started to company. Here is an exercise that can prepare you for that conversation. Go to a park and find a person pushing a baby stroller. Stop them and explain to them that their child is ugly but you know a great plastic surgeon that can help. That is pretty much the conversation you will have with the private ownership of a company. Do some planning before you approach them.

    If you ultimately want to pitch to ownership and management. They are not interested in hearing about Cpk, hypothesis testing, control charts, Gemba, etc. Management speaks the language of money. Juran told us all that in the 80’s and it is still true today. Since you are privately held getting your hands on financials will be extremely difficult. If you can, the number that is important is EBITDA. It is unfortunately a financial metric rather than and accounting metric and a large number of accountants have no clue what it is. They will recognize EBIT. If you can find a project that impacts EBIT positively then you will get their attention. The easiest way to understand where a good project comes from is using a thing called a Dupont chart. It is basically a tree diagram of financials. Start at a thing called EBIT and start chasing it backwards. It can (assuming you understand it) lead you to a project. If you find it that way you can turn right around and use that same chart to explain the financial impact to management when you finish the project.

    As I said earlier in a privately held company financials are very difficult to get to see. If that is the case you need to familiarize yourself with a document call the Income Statement. If you have to select a project without financials (which by the way is how most do it and why most work projects nobody cares about) but you can demonstrate when you present to management that you understand the business side of the business (as opposed to the technology) you will have a more successful conversation.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #241583

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Kamal1974 You probably want to check out the Program at Ohio State University at the Fisher College of Business.

    I have not looked into what is going on at Notre Dame but there seems to be a lot of discussion around a program there. I think Bill Hathaway who started Moresteam is involved there as well.

    0
    #241582

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jmwlmson I am with Chris Seider on the ridiculousness of this at least if you are going to parade it around as SPC.

    I cannot even imagine what test I could do after a board is complete that would tell me that the board had been built correctly particularly if it is a multilayer board.

    0
    #241581

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aayanbule I am more in the @OliverKozak camp and maybe a more extreme case. I don’t like auditors and probably never will. Basically you stated you have been in industry for 15 years and an auditor for 10 years so for 67% of your career you have never really contributed anything original.

    Auditors walk around (on their busiest days) urinating all over everyone’s work like a drunken ally cat. If you are serious about this take Oliver’s advice very seriously, close your mouth, listen to people and just maybe you will learn something instead of blowing in thinking with your complete lack of relevant experience everyone has been waiting breathlessly for you to show up.

    Just my opinion.

    1
    #241580

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @yousif.Hamzah That is a very difficult question to be able to figure out. This is just a thought but when you went to the pull down menus at the top of the page and selected to the one labeled “Discuss” the one just to the right of it is labeled “Jobs.” I am going to go out on a limb here but if you click that you will probably be able to answer your own question. I could be wrong but I would start there.

    0
    #241307

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @manugirla I will be very surprised if you find a lot of material on IoT, big data and LSS. People don’t seem to connect the dots all that well until someone else does it for them. They all leverage each other and if you are just getting into this you need to understand how to maximize your return.

    Good luck.

    0
    #241306

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @farisrodhi Hope this helps you figure it out.

    @KatieBarry Thank you for jumping in and making the connection. Looks like it worked out well.

    @Venerablebede Great job. Knew you were the right person for this. Hopefully it can serve as more of a template for people in general. Some of the financial modeling stuff you see on line is very short sighted.

    0
    #241290

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @manugirla Something you may want to consider is understanding the impact of IoT on taking acquiring large data sets. You can take a lot of data with next to no cost and it speeds up your LSS projects exponentially (that was one of those words when you heard it in school you were pretty sure you would never in your life use it. Here I am killing it!)

     

    1
    #241289

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Farisrodhi I could give you my version but that is probably not going to be your best answer. If we can get a person @venerablebead to show up he would do this right (@katiebarry I probably got his name wrong – Help?). If that doesn’t work I would call the door manufacturer and have then send a field service person out to figure it out.

    1
    #241181

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Ahiru-san Where inside the spec is the most profitable place for your company to produce the product? You might want to understand the Taguchi Loss Function.

    1
    #241113

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aaronolson No problem. I am proud of you. Bob Galvin was the CEO of Motorola (his father started Motorola) and he direction to us was “to steal shamelessly.” (not illegally but never walk away from a good idea).

    0
    #241059

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @s_glukhov@fdp.ru I don’t think there is any misunderstanding of control charts with at least 3 of the 4 people in this string. Probably 4 but I only have first hand knowledge of 3. So lets look at your statement. Here is the ASQ definition of a control chart “The control chart is a graph used to study how a process changes over time. Data are plotted in time order. A control chart always has a central line for the average, an upper line for the upper control limit, and a lower line for the lower control limit. These lines are determined from historical data.” I don’t see a requirement to do the tests. As a matter of fact I have seen very few control charts in my lifetime that use all 8 control chart rules. So basically the ability to do testing doesn’t really determine if something is or is not a control chart. That is the esoteric academic view of the world.

    In the pragmatic world 1 piece of data is better than 2, 2 pieces of data is better than 1, etc. It is a pattern. There is a reason that confidence intervals become smaller as the sample size increases. So if I run with 3 points my risk is higher. It may be higher but it is better than sitting doing nothing (still making decisions by the way). Using my 3 points reduces my confidence interval much more than doing nothing. It decreases the standard error. In this case you make a choice to throw up your hands and close your eyes and use the force to run the process or you use what you have and as you get more data you recalculate.

    This whole thing comes down to what everybody has said in one way or another – do what you want to do but understand the assumptions and risks based on your data. Same thing with putting spec limits on a control chart which was asked in a different question. Basically if this comes down to blindly following rules then nobody needs Chris, or Robert or chebetz or me or even you. You get some programmer to write a little code and then put Alexa or Siri on the line. The AI people love these types of answers. Those people who blindly follow rules are the first to volunteer to go home when AI shows up.

    Some where along the line there was the quote “You cannot improve a process that is not in control.” I have found many BB’s sitting doing nothing because they ran their control chart, it was out of control and based on that they were waiting for it to come under control before the did anything. This whole idea of using rules to handcuff yourself makes no sense. Management wants results. Telling them you did nothing because of a rule is a career limiting strategy.

    Just my opinion.

    1
    #241056

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @AlonzoMosley I didn’t think anyone else in this world remembered Midnight Run.

    Anytime you need a crane to get something down Gravity will also work. It doesn’t work well to lift things.

    0
    #241037

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Chebetz That was my interpretation of your post. What you are seeing is the typical reaction to doing something that doesn’t match what people put in books. I have always had issues with rules to some extent. This is paraphrased but “I didn’t care yesterday. I don’t care today. I won’t care tomorrow.”

    I have always been more concerned with results and understanding risk. Adding a couple lines on a graph doesn’t represent any risk as long as you explain i.e. train people what you are doing and you don’t just walk away and provide some support.

    It has been a very long time since I have launched a new production line. When I start up I run control limits at 95%. I am driving more out of control points because I want who ever is supporting the launch looking at everything. You cannot believe how much flack I took every time I did it. You know how much I cared? Zero, nada, zilch. It was my line and my responsibility and could care less if they had to spend more time on the line than they liked.

    This is your project. Understand the risk and adjust for it or if it is to large don’t do it. I don’t see any actual risk to this other than you are going to have some idiot with a stats book regurgitating stuff you learned a very long time ago.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #241033

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @chebetz I have seen this same issue repeatedly since my first control chart in 1983. I have never had a decent answer and yes I have always heard the sample size of 30.

    This is what I do. I do 25 subgroups of 5 (preferably 5).

    0
    #241032

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @chebetz I need you to clear something up. In your post you spoke about adding spec limits to the control chart i.e. “What harm could come from including these two additional lines on a control chart (other than the possible confusion a reader could have and mix up the control and specification limit lines)?” My interpretation of that comment is that you are not running to spec limits. You continue to run to control limits and just have spec limits as “additional lines.”

    Now we are getting posts about running to spec limits? Which is it?

    0
    #240990

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @janinesarti If you are working for a company as a Belt and the process is that you need to find your own project you are in a poorly managed deployment. If you do not control project selection then they are not controlling the direction of the deployment. If you do not control the direction of the deployment then “alignment” os purely serendipitous. It is pretty obvious what ends up happening to resources i.e. belts, working on things that are not aligned with the company.

    0
    #240920

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @carlislec If the entire goal is to have a Cpk of 1.33 that means you need to have a tolerance width of 4x the standard deviation to the closest specification. You had better use long term data to calculate this. I am not going to tell you about a 1.5 sigma shift in the mean but if you use short term data it will move. A total tolerance width could be established at 8X the standard deviation and your process will have to stay dead center.

    0
    #240916

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Andy-Parr Thank you. I hit 67 yesterday. I am a 08/08 baby so I am like a little lucky charm if I am in China.

    0
    #240915

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @carlislec mixing the language between SPC/contr0l charts and Capability Studies. I don’t get the idea of assessing a control chart in terms of Cpk seems very odd. Control Charts by themselves will tell you when to adjust without any conversation about Cpk. I may be missing something here.

    Basically you have a machine that is not capable doing this operation. I am not sure why anyone would be surprised that you can’t hold the Capability. If you don’t do something to change the machine you are going to have to deal with the capability issue.

    0
    #240889

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cseider @carlisler I am with Chris. I have no idea how you “run to a Cp/Cpk standard.” First if you can’t hold the tolereance when you make the part then you should not be able to get to a 1.66/1.33.  If those are legitimate numbers then that means you did run that well at the time the study was done.

    It the end of the day your variation is to large. It doesn’t really mean much that the machine is designed to do 0.0003. It isn’t holding what you need. That means you need to fix it.

    This is a generalization but if there is a mean issue then it is generally a knob variable. If it is a standard deviation issue it is a process issue i.e. tool wear, material, tooling etc. This is just a guess but when you are running that tight I would start at tool wear. You have virtually no room for tool wear.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #240879

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Manray I got over 29,000,000 hits on Google in about .5 seconds. If you are using the same data set then you have a formula issue or so it would seem. I am sure if you contact the Minitab help line they can walk you through what they do.

    0
    #240856

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @MBBinWI Good to hear from you as always and very happy you are doing well in the new job. Just swing through and say hello every now and then.

    Has your email changed? It bounces for me.

    0
    #240854

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @chebetz, @rbutler and @straydog Just to do one upsmanship I found this site in 2001. I was being sued for violating a noncompete so I couldn’t work for myself. The guy suing me used time as a strategy and dragged these things out trying to run you out of money. It also gave the market time to forget you and move on. I dedicated 4 hours a day to answering questions. Abut 60 days later I was doing a speech in Las Vegas and a guy in the front row said “I know you. You’re that guy on isixsigma.” It was working. Here I am 18 years later.

    Up until about 2010 this site saw about 40 new posts per day. It was and probably still is the epicenter for Six Sigma. That and we are very reluctant to ignore @michaelcyger and @katiebarry. They are very sensitive. It was what Bill Hathaway at Moresteam called “Food Fights” and there was a group of us called the Usual Suspects (Stan, HeBe Geebe, Darth and Stevo) that Mike Cyger referred to us as his Jerry Springer factor. It was pretty exciting, my lawsuit was over (about 18 months and I was working again) but if I had to make a choice between watching TV or answering questions I would answer questions. The attached picture is from a iSixSigma Live conference in Miami. 4 of the five Usual Suspects were behind a lit screen – Stand didn’t show up well because he was on the phone. They did this at the end extemporaneously.

    Between being self employed and up until about 2012 I slept about 3-4 hours a day there was still a lot of time to answer questions. I am a huge fan of a lot of the people who post here regularly. I have learned more about statistics from Robert Butler than anyone else and read most everything he posts. I have made friends with people all over the world. I am even nice to Darth sometimes.

    I have a day job as a LSS consultant and a few other things. I tried to retire last year and figured that was going to kill me faster than anything else so back to work.

    That’s my story and I am sticking to it.

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    1
    #240845

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @chebetz I am with @rbutler and @straydog on some level. There is no statistical jail. You want them on there put them on. Don’t put them on and walk away. Pay attention to what you have done and make sure you aren’t causing a mess. This whole thing is about continuous improvement. You want to try something, do it and if it works keep doing it and don’t worry about what other people think. If it doesn’t work have the integrity to say you screwed it up and remove it.

    Here is a couple examples. I had a BB I was mentoring in Skelmersdale England. Did a box plot and there were 3 boxes close together and 1 that was not even close. His plan was to adjust the one to the 3. The 3 were actually out of spec and the single plot was the only one that was in. That is a mistake you can make if you ignore specifications.

    I had a wave solder process on a bomb fuse line. We ran to WS 6536 which require binocular inspection of every solder joint. Idiotic requirement but I had 5 visual inspection lines of 3 inspectors each. Each group of 3 operated as an inspection team. Each team plotted the number of defects per board on a control chart. The issue came when some little nerd saw that the boards were distributed randomly to each inspection line as they came of the wave solder machine. This hysterical nerd dragged a lot of books into my office to convince me I was breaking statistical laws and she would have my head on a spike outside her tent before sundown. Those boards had to be in the order they were processed through wave solder. Right now there are a bunch of nerds shaking their heads in agreement. Without even a question of why off she went. Well I still have my head and she probably hates me to this day. As I said there were 5 lines inspecting from a single process. That should be pretty much a homogeneous product. My control charts were there so I could walk past and make sure no group of inspectors had fallen down some cosmic bunny hole and started doing something off the wall like calling a bunch of defects that were not there. I was controlling my inspection process not the wave solder process.

    Each board had a serial number. That serial number (bar code) was entered into a data base with the number and location of defects. The wave solder machine had a bar code reader as well. It, the wave solder machine, pulled data from the data base in the order processed (from reading the bar codes) and constructed a control chart for the engineer that ran wave solder. He controlled the process because I had control of inspection. Pretty cool how that works.

    We were quite happy with our controls on that process. Without the courtesy of a question some little nerd with a copy of Grant and Leavenworth (Statistical Quality Control Handbook – good reference material – you need a copy) had made the discovery of a lifetime and was going to be a famous SPC cop. Our program was the only Motorola program to win 2 CEO Quality Awards and a Navy Salty Dog Award. We broke the rules but we understood what we were doing when we did. I have never been great at following rules and really don’t care much what people think (obviously if someone I respect has an issue then it means something). If you want to be mediocre and do all the same stuff exactly as the book says and your peers do and not think – well mediocre isn’t a bad thing. Just remember when you do that you are easy to replace even with a cocker spaniel. If you want to step up, what is that Eagles song? All Ready Gone. “….then you’ll have to eat your lunch all by yourself.” There are worse things in life.

    Check out Mario Perez Wilson’s book Six Sigma (write that title down it is hard to remember). Mario and I worked together on this project, FMU-139. I left and he did FZU-48 by himself (actually with Jim Blanden another very intelligent guy people perceived as a Neanderthal-zero tact and he knew more about wine than the yuppies in management so it is easier to disparage than learn from him). The book is not about those programs specifically but the experience from those programs flows through to Mario’s writing naturally. You might find it enlightening.

    This has nothing to do with statistics but you need people like Jim Blanden. Mario as well but he is a very classy guy. Jim is more basic. I was driving to work and my car broke down across the street from Jim’s apartment. I walked over to catch a ride and both his cars were there so I knew he was home. Knocked and no answer. Knocked again with no answer. As I walked away I heard the door open and there was Jim naked and dripping wet (second floor overlooking a golf course). I said “Jim you are naked.” Jim said “of course I was in the shower,” I said “you could have put cloths on to answer the door.” Jim said “why would I do that? I am going to get back into the shower.” That is the personality you need around you to some extent to make change. People on the floor loved him. Management hated him but when he said turn right it was always a good idea to make the turn and then ask why. I have told that story in various situations. I always thought it would be a great interview story. I have found that about 99% of the people laugh. That other 1% that doesn’t laugh. Those are the interesting people.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #240828

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Andy-Parr @MBBinWI I miss his input on here and I miss working with him. He is a great Mechanical Engineer. Lots of integrity – he does what he says he will do.

    His academic background is impressive which is probably the reason he is so tough on homework.

    0
    #240767

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Abztaffyboy Big is ok. Ugly worries me. That Robin Williams quote “Don’t pick a fight with an ugly person. They have nothing to lose.”

    There have been what Bill Hathaway from Moresteam refers to as “food Fights” on here. @Darth is the one you need to watch on the homework stuff. He is pretty cranky but he is old too.

    0
    #240762

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Andy-Parr Part of the aging process? Looks like you have him well in hand.

    1
    #240742

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @abztaffyboy It depends on what you want to know. If I want to know if I made a difference in the entire inspection process then it gets timed from the point where the inspection is requested to the point where the inspection is complete. If I want to know the effect of the computer then it is when the form is picked up to the time it is complete.

    0
    #240740

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Hajo I understand your comment. Basically it is the “fail to reject” comment. I have gone through this kind of discussion with my attorneys on several occasions. Regardless of what you say if you fail to reject the null hypothesis you behavior will be to treat them as if you had accepted the null hypothesis. You either treat them as if they are equal or like they are not.

    0
    #240706

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @sriramsg That lloks a lot like a homework problem. How about you take your best shot at it before we jump in and help.

    0
    #240702

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BayanKamal Welcome to the world of business buying cheap training from people who know just enough to get past HR. Then people wonder why deployments fail. No a lot of people have your energy to try to figure out what actually needs to be done.

    If you get good at hypothesis testing it will solve a lot of problems for you and the process people will love you. You can set this up and run it without,generally, disturbing the production process.

    0
    #240649

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ssoe2020 Katie is correct. Most of the regular posters on here will not do your homework for you. If you want to take a shot at it and come back for feedback or help you can get some very talented people that can help you i.e. @RButler, @CSeider, @StrayDog, @Darth etc. @Darth actually loves to help people do their homework.

    The other issue with your question is the reference to “baseline performance analysis.” That is not, that I am aware of, a standard type of analysis. It might be a capability study but normally if some one wants me to do a capability study the say something like “do a capability study.”

    The entire point of the Measure phase is to baseline the current process. If someone were to tell me to baseline something then you would get Measurement Phase type information.

    As far as the part about “If your process changed……” You need more than a baseline to tell of the process changed. As we used to say “that is like owning one walkie talkie.” It takes two to make it work.

    0
    #240648

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Straydog I am aware of how a good CEO functions. Between Robert Galvin at Motorola, Larry Bossidy at Allied Signal and Jack Welch at GE I feel like I got a pretty good look at some really great CEO’s. The question was not so much from the original poster as it was from another post by @Marchand who was raising his eyebrows because the original poster was responding to  CFO rather than a CEO. In todays world it is highly unlikely you are going to report directly to a CEO. Not impossible but very unlikely. I pointed out to @marchand that the benchmark deployments we had not reported to the CEO. Obviously they took that personally.

    Imagine reporting directly to Jack Welch. It is highly unlikely you are going to call him directly. You have to see what it takes to just get onto the Executive floor at GE Corporate so you are not going to call him directly. We could call Gary Reiner directly. Gary was not an expert in deploying SS that was why he hired us. Gary was a genius in how to get things done efficiently inside GE (outside probably as well but I never had him in that capacity). The whole idea that Belts report to the CEO is ludicrous and actually probably less efficient. You need someone with enough formal power to intercede in issues but you also need someone who is accessible.

    What you do need from a CEO is signs that they support the initiative. At Motorola Bob Galvin had everyone carry a card that had Motorola’s Values, vision, initiatives etc. He told everyone that the first topic discussed in every meeting would be quality. Bob Galvin (CEO), Gary Tooker (COO) and Chris Galvin (CIO) reviewed the SS 6up chart (it actually only had 5 charts) monthly for key products. Who ran SS? For automotive it was Dr. Martin “Marty” Rayl, Director of Quality Assurance, and I would not have traded him for anyone else. He was amazing support.

    What you need from a CEO is a visible sign of support. The Lonmin example in my previous post that obviously ruffled @marchand feathers – obviously a different opinion from his is unthinkable – was that in one visit to SS House he, Brad Mills, sent a message that was very clear to a company of 25,000 people and he did it in about 3 hours. Did I call Brad every time something went wrong? No. If I did that then he would not have needed me. I called him once in 6 years. I needed our Executive Sponsor replaced. He replaced him in about 10 minutes. That was the one and only time in 6 years he had to actively get involved at the operations level. If your relationship with the CEO is that you run and “tell on” someone every time you get resistance you will have a very short career.

    This whole “CEO envy” thing makes no sense. If you cannot deploy something in an organization without the day to day involvement of the CEO then your organization lacks the one skill absolutely essential for survival in todays economy – THE ABILITY TO CHANGE.

    Like the quote from Wall Street 2 Money Never Sleeps: “Don’t whine when it hurts. It’s like the first grade, Jerry. Nobody likes a crybaby.”

    If a person does not understand how to drive change on a personal level then you need to understand missing skill set is career limiting in todays business world.

    Just my opinion

    0
    #240646

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BayanKamal Let me try an example. Let’s say I have two types of raw material, material A and material B. I want to test then to see if they process the same. H0 is Material A = Material B. It is always equal.

    0
    #240633

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aaronolson In all probability you are not going to make much difference by the number of samples you take because it takes a very large confidence sample to mean anything. I still stick with 30 and 95 – 100%. I do prefer 3 trials and randomize between trials.

    0
    #240632

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BayanKamal The null hypothesis is always one equals the other.

     

    0
    #240609

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Aaronolson Most of the literature is going to tell you 20 or 30. We had a huge debate on this in 1999. 20 or 30 is actually insufficient as well. The real issue is nobody generally will pass an attribute agreement study first time through so why do we want to do a couple hundred samples which is where one of out consultants had determined we should be?

    Tell you what. Run your numbers again and make it look like you had 20 samples and the additional 10 all were correct and see what your results are. Your inspectors are not agreeing with the standard i.e. the true state of nature. That is a problem. It gets even more complex when they don’t agree with each other.

    I ran a study in June with sample size 16. It was because of the way it was packaged. I could have done 32 but when you watched them on the job you realize they won’t make it at 16 why do 32.

    Once you fix the inspection you may want to run a larger sample just to be sure you fixed it.

    Remember this is inspection so this is a behavior based issue. Your control plan needs to cover training at probably around a 3 month interval because this just never stays fixed. You pay someone to find defects that is what they do. You improve the process and they get more critical. Take a different approach talk to them about their job being to verify everything is good. It sounds stupid but their seems to be a difference in looking for bad versus verifying things are good.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #240606

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @mannemv Your welcome. I would wait for some input from other people as well.

    0
    #240601

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Mannemv I would think IT and Process Owners would be self explanatory.

    When you look at the categories you have one called “severity” and that needs to be scored. Legal and risk fit very nicely into deciding that. Simply look at automotive failures. First if you identify it in a FMEA you just created an opportunity for a law suite. If you do identify it and it occurs and you didn’t do anything about it you just need to write a check because your court case will last a nano second.

    You also have a section call “detection.” Compliance and audit should have a large amount of input on those categories.

    All that being said I have never had legal, risk or compliance sit in on a FMEA process. You write it and put it out for review because they are such a pain to get to attend. You send it out on email so if there is ever an issue you have a file that says “you were invited”, “you chose to not attend,” and “you got a copy before it was released.” It isn’t worth the fight but leaving yourself culpable for their passive aggressive behavior would be negligent on your part.

    0
    #240600

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BayanKamal I don’t know if this will help but iSixSigma ran this article earlier this year. Check the chart.

    https://www.isixsigma.com/community/blogs/the-history-of-the-hypothesis-testing-flow-chart/

     

    0
    #240596

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Straydog Allied Signal ran its deployment out of Jim Cerk’s office. Richard Schroeder who eventually was partners in Six Sigma Academy was part of Cerk’s staff. It is the same way GE deployed it. GE had Welch but Reiner did the work. Bossidy did Allied but Cerk/Schroeder did the work.

    0
    #240577

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @BayanKamal i agree with Darth’s comments.  Just a side not. If you go out and collect data on two separate occasions and end up with exactly the same values there is a real high probability there is something else going on. Something like a measurement system issue or something like that. Even if you end up with exactly the same mean and standard deviation you need to start kicking over rocks because it is a low probability.

    Just my opinion.

    1
    #240575

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth i know exactly the feeling. We did the South Africa work won Global Deployment of yhe Year for 2 consecutive years. Had Archbishop Desmond Tutu come out and spend 3 days on site because of the stuff he had heard about what was going on. Change CEO’s and the vision is gone. Company just sold.

    People throw the term Machiavellian around like it is this really bad thing and only a low life does it. Read The Prince. It is a playbook that most of these leadership people follow. That whole idea of killing all the supporters of the old system is alive and well. Globally.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #240574

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth @michaelcyger You saw him running around at conferences. He is pretty unassuming. It isn’t like he would drive a black car with a license plate that said The Real Mike.

    Can you imagine who would do something like that?

    0
    #240530

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @KatieBarry It is just a function of who has stuff to do. You are a busy person so stuff slips. Me, on the other hand, I am looking for reason to not go out in the heat and mow mu lawn. I will do virtually anything that involves staying in the AC or the river.

    @Michaelcyger I am just waiting to see how many people come back and ask who Mike Cyger is?

    0
    #240520

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Marchand You are welcome. I hope it helps you control your eyebrows.

    @Darth Shades of Miami

    0
    #240491

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Marchand I am not real sure what your issue is with the idea of launching under a CFO. When we deployed at General Electric, we were under Gary Reiner who was the CIO. Not a real secret. Jack Welch explains it in his book Straight From the Gut.

    When I ran the BHP Billiton deployment it was under Karen Lay-Brew who was also the CIO.

    When we did Lonmin in South Africa I had pretty much unobstructed access to the President and CEO but most everything went through the Deployment Leader. If you have to run to the CEO for your power then you have already lost the battle.

    When I went to South Africa we were in good shape because everyone was aware of the CEO position on SS. Where the real shift was he walked into Six Sigma House (we had converted a Mine Managers house into classrooms, SS tables (nobody had an office – no drawers, etc.) and spent about 3-4 hours discussing issues with the BB’s. That is how you shift culture.

    When we were at Allied Signal in 1995 Larry Bossidy (then the CEO) called Rob Tripp. @venerablebede, and had a conversation with him about the SS program. At Allied Signal I reported to the VP of Operations for Automotive. Power comes from action not necessarily titles.

    I have no idea where you got the idea that this had to deploy under the CEO to work. It takes an effective executive sponsor who is preferably at the “C” Level or Executive VP level. Actually, if you are under the CFO (who is normally our strongest ally) then the advantage is when the benefit numbers get reported (assuming they do) nobody questions them.

    Just my opinion

    0
    #240488

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cfberardinelli I like the Beatles quote. I did an article for Quality Progress a few years back and threw in a similar quote from The Greatful Dead – “What a long strange trip its’s been.”

    @cseider and @venerableBede Have to agree South Africa was an amazing experience for us all. I would do it again in a heartbeat.

    @Ddelisle Yes this is a pretty amazing place where the honest can get some serious quality help for free. You missed the food fight days of the Usual Suspects where we averaged 40 posts per day. It was pretty wild back then.

    0
    #240455

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth and @Cseider I think adding Safety to 5S is a bad move. Here is why. When I met Brad Mills he was the President of BHP Billiton Base Metals. He had a very active safety program basically because mining can be a very dangerous business. When we were talking about deploying Six Sigma he was very clear that SS was going to be his second priority in terms of introducing initiatives. Safety was number 1 and always would be number 1. He said that having the President and CEO drive Safety sent a very clear message to the entire work force that he cared about every single one of them – which by the way he did. Personally I had no issue with being #2 in priority because I had no desire to die in an accident any more than anyone else.

    So now they can’t make 5S work which really isn’t a surprise. A company will spend a lot of money doing the 5S thing and the ROI is virtually impossible to calculate without getting into some long winded BS discussion of soft savings. I saw a discussion with some Lean consultants who were coached that when someone asked about benefits calculations they should respond “You are asking the wrong question.” There is a career limiting response. That is one of those things that when the Q3 cutbacks show up yearly because for the first half of the year nobody worried about the budget, they will get cut right after the training person in HR. So they shut down 5S just like they do training. This is the US Manufacturing ritual dance that they do every year.

    Google 5S. Over half a billion hits in less than 1 second. We could have the most well documented failure this world economy has ever seen. Everybody wants to write a paper or make a video about how to deploy it but they are going to be like thos people who showed up to a Barbara Wheat class and wore their business attire because they only wanted to be trained until Wednesday. Once they had to go clean the work are they felt they already understood enough. After Barbara got off the phone with the VP of Ops they all went to Wallmart to pickup some inexpensive work clothes to get down in the grease and dirt with.

    If you cannot make 5S stick and are such a complete wimp that you back it down to 3S you need to be banned as a Lean Leader and your management needs to be banned from management ever again.

    I have watched and listened to TQM people claim that SS stole all their tools from TQM and they point to Control Charts. We all know TQM didn’t invent any tools (particularly Control Charts) any more than SS did. Neither were ever created to invent nor own tools. They were systems put together that follow the basic Scientific Process. So if you roll Safety into 5S by Q3 2020 some genius will claim Safety has to be part of a Lean deployment. That is all we need is a bunch of Lean guys who think they are the Phoenix bird of TPS having safety placed in their hands. The last thing I want is my safety in the hands of someone who cannot figure out how to make 5S work unless you are working in some factory that makes those little umbrellas people put in their drinks.

    I love what Toyota has accomplished with TPS. Lean has done well over the years and they are now getting their 15 minutes of fame but they have made it so soft they can’t even clean a place up and make it stick. That is nothing to do with Lean. That is the group you are turning to for deployment.

    So this has turned into one of those “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” type posts. Glad to see you posting stuff Darth. People will stop thinking I am the biggest Xsshole on the site.

    0
    #240410

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aaronolson I would think that to a bunch of mechanical people #4 would appeal because it is traditional. Old time mechanical measurement stuff. Also technique dependent.

    This whole 1,2 & 4 thing seems to be pretty opinion based. Probably healthiest to stay out of the fight and let the data talk.

    That is a lot of dies. Probably best to wait.

    The sooner you get your team onto data I would think the better you will be. There are a fair number of people who, once they take a position, will not move regardless of facts. Probably best if you get them looking at data before they dig a really deep hole.

    0
    #240405

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cseider I think there is a lot of the public that has no idea there is a system. They are being fed a diet of tools. It is like “while is everyone eating whale blubber at the Arctic Buffet? Because it is the only thing on the menu”

    The last company I saw doing 3S was a company that 30 years ago was a benchmark for “Lean” companies in the US.

    I had a guy in Thailand ask me from his office and the second floor what I thought of his floor layout. After watching for about 30 minutes I told him it was flowing the wrong direction and why I thought so. He got pissed at me. I am not the one who put the line in the wrong direction.

    People have lost track of what matters. They want to talk tools and philosophy. They have no clue about systems and results.

    It is very frustrating but it is predictable. I attached the Watts Wacker model from his book The Deviant’s Advantage. SS is at social convention. Between the authenticity quotient, commercial potential and audience size the OpEx world resembles ducks being force fed so people can eat foie gras. The ducks don’t have a promising future.

    Just my opinion.

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #240401

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aaronolson I apologize on missing the part about the expert. Your measurement systems may make a straight answer a little more complicated. It looks like 1 & 2 are going to produce attribute data. That is going to be an attribute agreement type study and you will need the expert included by definition. If you go to a measurement system such as a CMM that will produce variable data I would include the expert and run the analysis with and without the experts input. Not with anything particular in mind but just to see if there is a difference.

    If I am checking 3 axes doesn’t that mean measurement systems 1 & 2 are not adequate?

    I would think part of the answer is going to be what is the volume. I would think if you are doing a high volume then 3 and 5 make the most sense. You would need to fixture #5. With a tolerance of +/-0.010 you have a lot of room and I would think a CMM is overkill but if it can be fixtured and programed then it is a fast solution.

    Maybe it is just me but option #4 seems very prone to operator technique issues. I am not a big fan of opening the door on measurement error/variation to becoming a function of how much partying took place the night before.

    In terms of your approach I like #2. Without the data on the current systems then most of your discussions are going to be opinion. As long as you have a person considered to be the “expert” that person is probably going to have an inordinate amount of influence on the group. If you do include the expert in the MSA and they do poorly I would not put that data in front of the group. You should have that discussion on the side or else risk having an enemy for life.

    Who knows if you do step #2 and some of your systems fail that makes decisions on how to measure and what data to use for steps 4 & 5 a much easier decision. That is what problem solving is. It is a subtractive process. You begin with all possibilities and then decide what to throw out and what to keep. You don’t make any progress on this until you eliminate the poor measurement systems and the data they produced or at least understand how inadequate they are. That is almost as valuable as knowing what works.

    The first 3 steps are really just to enable you to do steps 4 & 5 which is really the long term solution to the problem.

    This is just a thought but no matter where you go with this I would think sooner or later you are going to have to answer the question about how good is the die for extruding. I would put that thing on a CMM as soon as I could just so you don’t have to sit through some agonizing pontification about the effects of the die.

    Just my opinion,

    0
    #240394

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @rohk276 You honestly sent a report to a CFO and you started out with a list of 15 things that are problems and in the  beginning of the list you are proposing to a CFO to add headcount? And you are having trouble understanding what his issues are?

    As obsequious as this may sound you start off with maybe recognizing where their strengths are. You may have even heard of a SWOT analysis which may be a nice way to break him into the idea that there is some stuff that needs to be fixed.

    As far as 5S don’t be so astonished that there are people in this world that believe it doesn’t work. Frequently it does not. I run into more and more companies these days that are doing 3S and just as an FYI how are you going to explain to a CFO who probably only care about hard dollars that the potential soft dollars from 5S will save him any money.

    This is just my opinion. Everybody talks to somebody (if the don’t you need to get out of the company). Find out who the CFO’s confidant is and show them this thing you have produced and get some help on how to effectively approach the CFO.

    Before you jump on that “top management isn’t supporting” band wagon this one is on you. Regardless of how right you may be in your report you are totally ineffective at proposing change. There is a very good chance your CFO is a High A personality. That is a lot of reading for a High A particularly when it is more of a training class than a solution. High A’s don’t read at least most don’t. I also do not see any data to support your observations. This may be a news flash but a CFO likes numbers other wise this is just an opinion and no offense meant but you being an intern really comes down to “I have an opinion but no experience to justify my opinion.” As an intern you better have data.

    Just my opinion

    2
    #240393

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aaronolson I assume that these are large squares? It looks like options 1-5 are going to have capabilities that are going to differ based on the tolerance requirement of the square. You might consider that you qualify the measurement system based on tolerance requirements i.e. not use a CMM if there is a tolerance of +/- 1 inch.

    when I look at measurement system 1 and 2 it looks like they will tell you in a go/no go way if the corner is 90 degrees. That does not mean you have a square. Just a thought.

    0
    #240380

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Krushna I am not sure what you are looking for. Are you setting up a deployment inside an existing company, are you setting up a quality department from scratch, are you setting up a stand alone quality program for a project, etc.?

    0
    #240379

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @rbutler Most of the exams are not written by people  who are trained educators so the questions can be pretty oddly worded and of course as you can see completely wrong. Chris Seider actually wrote my tests or at least the better part of them and did a nice job.

    @Ddeisle There are tons of exams out there and certification is being sold by every person who has the audacity to advertise and charge you and issue you a certificate. The problem as you noted is that it is unregulated. It is a problem and a blessing. Problem is we get this mess we have right now. The blessing is most people who want to have one certifying body that is all powerful over the rest of the industry. The last thing I want is some person with a couple years out of college getting in a position like that and telling me what someone needs to know to be an effective Black Belt.

    If you do a search on this website you can find some of the posts where people have dressed themselves up as a certifying body with hundreds of certifications and they sell it but they also spend a ton of time in court over there business practices. There is a person I know who owns a company that trains in Six Sigma. They sat down on a weekend (actually 1 day) and passed 4 online certification exams for Black Belt and 1 for Master Black Belt.

    If you want to discuss this further we would need to go off line. My email is mike.carnell@csintlinc.com. You need to remember it will be my opinion only.

    0
    #240370

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Ddelisle These are question from which exam? There are a lot of exams out there and at least 50% are junk.

    0
    #240349

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Ddeliste Will you tell us where you got the test questions please.

    0
    #240204

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ddelisle This has been kind of the mainstay over the years. I have never studied for “belt” exam from this material. I did use it to study for the CQE about 30 years ago. I passed.

    https://www.qualitycouncil.com/

    0
    #240203

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth How about your beginnings? You don’t have to do it on parchment as you did when you began.

    @VenerableBede That ride isn’t over yet. We still have stuff coming in South America and Asia

    0
    #240202

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Darth Very happy to see you back even if it is for a little bit. Hope you are doing well.

    0
    #240164

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ddelisle If you run a Google search on “Six Sigma practice exams” you will have pages to choose from.

    0
    #240144

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @karimsalem I do not believe that your normality issue is a function of your gage. That looks a lot more like a sample selection issue.

    0
    #240143

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Vicbernie999 The list of hypothesis tests you listed may have come from a flow chart Miguel Hernandez and I created when we were teaching hypothesis testing in Europe (there is an article on iSS somewhere about it). That flowchart was created to explain what we were teaching. There is no point where it says it is an excusive list of hypothesis tests.

    Robert Butler will always give you great advice. I am not saying other will not but I have read Robert’s posts over the years and they are rock solid. The part that seems to be missing is the importance of sample size. I can turn a hypothesis test result around simply by changing the sample size. You need to understand sample size before you do any of this.

    0
    #239767

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Kmac25 Comparing current rates to historical rates can be done a lot of different ways. Something as simple as a time series plot, box plot, dot plot if you want to see it graphically or you can do a hypothesis test. Personally I prefer something like a hypothesis test so I can make definitive statements regarding confidence that you don’t get from graphs.

    I don’t get your reference to process capability. I assume you are not referencing the Capability analysis?

    0
    #239750

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @katiebarry Not a SS practitioner? Seriously? you run a website that has been pretty much the epicenter of SS world wide for about a decade. Like it or not you are one of us. I knew you had a pretty cool background I just wanted other people to see you as more than an editor.

    @gps1111 1952 doesn’t feel that long ago until you are doing like those surveys and they ask what age group you are in and you are checking the last box.

    @cseider It was happy to have you along for South Africa. Definitely some of the best times of my life. I am not sure if you were there when Archbishop Desmond Tutu came to visit. How cool is that when you are involved in something that a Nobel Peace Prize winner says “hey I want to go hang out with those guys for 3 days and see what they are doing.” There are a lot of wicked smart people down there doing some pretty cool stuff. Loved South Africa “It gets in your blood.”

    1
    #239749

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @joewojniak MSA I want to know if I can trust the data. This is particularly important if the people who believe there is a problem have not done some sort of MSA. This has always been important but I we become more in love, as a society, with drama it is always good to know the data is real.

    1
    #239699

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @michaelcyger we need to drag Darth into this. He had Deming as part of his PhD team. That has to be at least mildly interesting. How about Katie too?

    1
    #239698

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I began life August 8, 1952 in Flower Hospital in Toledo, Ohio. To far back?

    I learned electronics in the Marine Corps. Absolutely zero interest in it. Got a job at Motorola when I got out. Quit. Went to college. Ended up back at Motorola designing and building test equipment while I finished college. I wanted to get into the Accounting Department. I can only imagine what a nightmare that would have been for both Motorola and me. Since I couldn’t get into Accounting, a job as Quality Engineer seemed ok. Met Gary Cone and he convinced me to stay in quality for a while (that was 1983).

    What actually got me intrigued with the job, and I didn’t know what job it was, was when we hired a guy who I believe was Dorian Shainin. We had a product that had been having a problem for 19 years. RF problem in the 80’s was a difficult issue. We had the best RF people in the business but no solution. This guy and a woman from assembly sat at the end of my aisle and worked for 3 days. I had no idea what they were doing at that time but now I believe it was Shainin’s component search technique. Those two figured it out in 3 days. I thought “How cool is that. I want to be that guy that people call when nobody can figure out what is wrong.” True story. Don’t know if it was actually Shainin but mentally it makes the pieces fit together better for me. At the end of the day that was the coolest thing I had ever seen.

    I say my prayers every night and say exactly how thankful I am I was never allowed to be an accountant.

    2
    #239497

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @katiebarry I pretty much figured that. I am still pretty cyber challenged. Thank you for checking. I think yesterdays response was better but I don’t remember exactly what it was.

    1
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 6,327 total)