iSixSigma

Mike Carnell

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 6,294 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #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
    #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:
    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
    #239492

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @sharmin Not sure what happened. I answered this yesterday so I am not sure what happened, what I might have done or if Katie took it down. I was nice so we won’t blame Katie.

    You are the team lead not their nanny. Go into the next team meeting and put the problem on the table and see how they think they should handle it. Your job is to facilitate the discussion not solve every problem they have.

    Regardless of how much the VP of quality understands the process owner is exactly that – the process owner. I would get the VP of quality to do some coaching and mentoring. Have the discussion with your team and assuming the PO isn’t a total jerk invite them to a meeting and have the team present their thoughts.

    If you have that meeting and the PO doesn’t get it and you don’t get to some agreement sound the alarm. I had a team in another country that was moving incredibly slow and refused to acknowledge they were just not putting in any effort. I sent them all back to work and told them I was forming the same team with different people. By the next morning they were back and agreed to put in the work.

    These are people issues. There are no pat answers just stuff that works and stuff that doesn’t. Do what you think is right and sometimes it works out. Do not let the team stand you up in front to be the first person shot. Not your job.

    Good luck

    1
    #239491

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @krome I don’t know the answer but I know a person who will. If you want to email me at mike.carnell@csintlinc.com I can give you his contact information.

    0
    #239490

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @tomasspisar My training in soldering was from Ralph Woodcock (I think I got that correct) and was in the 1980’s. Here is the basic piece of information. A good solder joint only requires 3 things 1. heat 2. intimate contact 3. clean solder able surface. So what is flux for? Flux cleans a dirty surface. Theoretically you don’t need it if your boards are built and handled properly.

    We were in a government facility so we could only use RMA at the strongest. So everybody did stupid stuff like drive the specific gravity of the flux up trying to throw more solids on the boards. Nobody thought to keep them clean in the first place. Basically in your situation you can use a less active flux more successfully if your boards are cleaner. The advantage is a less active flux will have less ionic contamination and the board will less susceptible to dendritic growth. With todays lines and spaces I would assume you can short a board in the blink of an eye.

    Part of what gave use issues with high specific gravity was the wicking action of the flux was affected by the high solids so fluxing the topside of the board was difficult. I would assume there is little to no through hole technology today so probably not an issue.

    We did all of our testing on a group of prototype boards. We started by scrubbing them clean which was relatively easy in a big tank of tricolor 111. You probably don’t have access to such a benign chemical cleaner. Ultimately they were run through a cleanliness tester to assure they ere all at the came level of cleanliness. We set up treatments using a group screen design which was a fractional factorial with 4 groups of 4. The top group was then put in a full factorial design.

    You might be able to find a write up on this in one of Mikel Harry’s old books. I have no idea what the title of the article was but the title references Mil-P -28809 (something like that) It was also published in an Industrial Engineering book from Jay Heiser.

    Bottom line is the less contamination on the PCB the less you need from your flux so keep the boards clean and avoid the ionic contamination issue.

    I did this work with a bunch of people and magically the group got bigger once the results showed about an 80% reduction in defects. This was also the same thing that taught me to not trust brain storming. We had this down to 16 variable which is way to many for a normal DOE. We had close to 30 experts rank order those variables for the group screen design. The one factor that drove the whole thing was I think #12. 30 people “experts” could not even get it into the top 10. To a person when the final report was published they would stop us in the halls and tell us “If that was all you wanted to know you should have asked us.” Be polite ask for their input and then do whatever you think is right. Do not let them intimidate you.

    Good luck,

    0
    #239458

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @nicole1211 Your site looks like Carr’s Pasties is a privately held business. If so a couple of things to pay attention to. This is the owners baby. If they perceive criticism, in general, it is not received well. Think about how you say things. To prepare for this you can go to your local playground and stop mothers who are pushing their child in a stroller. Explain to the mother the child is ugly but you know an excellent plastic surgeon. This will be similar to discussions with an owner. Second if privately held it is money out of their pocket if there is a better way (this is from personal experience of owning a factory). If you have information about how much was sold last year – very specific information you can go to the recipes and calculate how much material should have been purchased to manufacture that many pastries. Compare that to the amount actually purchased and the difference between to two is basically the money that was wasted i.e. the size of the prize for efficiency. If you do not have access to long term data run some small studies and extrapolate to a yearly loss.

    Good luck.

    0
    #239456

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ansam I am along the lines of @Straydog. This would seem to be a waste of time. If your coach at work is going to give you a hard time about this turn it into an attribute gage study. Get about 20 old documents that are accepting and rejecting you quotes and run it as an attribute agreement study. Who knows maybe it isn’t as simple as it appears.

    The other side of your process is, this is my assumption, that someone enters it into a system as a go/no go. Go back and audit the 20 you just pulled and see if they were entered correctly.

    Just my opinion

    0
    #239453

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @andyclark I am going to risk alienating you right in the beginning. The problem with transactional people is they see this SS thing as some blue collar process for manufacturing. It has never been that and if transactional people stop trying to figure why it doesn’t apply, learn the concept and then think about it you will find out it does apply. If Transactional people had understood the importance of MSA we would not have had the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis (note to Mike C I am creating a market for my paper on transactional MSA).

    One of the very first SS projects at Motorola was “time to close the books.” Bob Galvin was the CEO and asked to be able to walk out of his office and say close the books. We wanted the closed globally within 24 hours. Nothing blue collar about that and nothing to do with manufacturing. All you had to do was listen and convert his language into a specification. The upper spec was 24 hours. Not particularly complicated.

    We discovered at Motorola after the first 2 years that improvement got a lot tougher the better you got. Managing to a goal like 6 sigma didn’t make as much sense as managing to a rate of improvement. We were told a 10 fold improvement every 2 years and a 100 fold improvement every 4 years. That translates to a 68% improvement. So you manage your improvement to a rate of improvement. That can be converted to numbers i.e. specs.

    Run VSM’s on your transaction processes. Look at the NVA time. It will be huge. Don’t let people off with goals like a 10% improvement. They can step up tell them to cut it 50%. Our goals at Motorola for the first 4 years was a 50% reduction in Cycle Time per year. People holler and scream maybe to day the whine and cry but this can be done and if I cut cycle time 50% one year after I thought my best shot was 10% I become a more confident employee.

    Creating specs are not difficult. They are simple numerical representations of a businesses expectations.

    1
    #239451

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @aerospacer @Straydog @rbutler I am not sure I can answer this completely but I might be able to help with some of it.

    In the late 1980’s I was working at Motorola Government in a captive PCB fabrication house. It was done for security reasons and we could not send out prints of PCB’s unless they had compliant security systems for up to Top Secret material. Motorola got a new manager in our PCB facility. I thought he was a jerk at the time but ended up respecting him a lot. We rejected some boards and the sampling plan according to the spec basically destroyed the entire lot. Mike took the position that my inspection was bad not his boards and that he would only allow us to proceed if we could prove our inspection/test was good. Nobody had ever done that. We were government and we just followed rules. I worked with John Hathaway to come up with some convoluted way to analyze data about our test methodology. Everybody bought it but nobody believed it.

    A couple months later I was at Motorola SPS (5005 McDowell facility) and mentioned this to a guy. He said he had seen something like that and rummaged around in this desk for about 15 minutes until he found some old sheets that had been copied from something (it was the old GR&R methodology). I took it back and kicked it around with some people and it seemed to make sense. There was nothing on the copies that told us where it came from so basically we just had to rely on taking the calculations apart and deciding what they told us.

    The first guy that actually did anything with it was Mario Perez Wilson. He was bringing up a new FZU-48 line which was basically an alternator for the FMU-139 bomb fuse. Mario did probably the cleanest launch ever in Government Electronics up to that time. Mario has a book titled Six Sigma, interestingly enough, that for legal reasons is not about the FZU-48 line but is heavily influenced by that experience. Mario was the first guy to actually begin consulting outside of Motorola but not as Six Sigma but as MPCpS. Machine Process Capability System has always used MSA/GRR as part of the system. Very classy guy with impeccable integrity. https://www.mpcps.com/

    As a side note GR&R was not always readily accepted. On Friday evenings (late 1980’s) we would all meet a local place called Duck and Decanter. A bunch of QA nerds drinking beer and wine but they had a water feature with fish so it gave our children something to do. I got into a GR&R conversation with a person I respected a lot, just not that night. The conversation elevated. When we left my spouse informed me that if I ever did that in public again she would never go anywhere with me again. Getting people to accept this was painful.

    Fast forward from the late 1980’s to Wave 1 Allied Signal, Safety Restraints in Knoxville Tennessee January 1995. We are teaching GR&R as part of Measure (D had not been added yet). I was supporting some great people in the Knoxville facility. I met my champion for the seat belt factory, John Lazur. At that time the AIAG book on MSA listed John in the very front of the book as one of the originators of GR&R. He was one of the people who wrote the original manual. I have not had contact with John in years but if you want to know where he and his friends go the idea for GR&R I would look for a way to contact John Lazur. You may have to pay for a round of golf to get him to discuss it with you. In the event that John is no longer with us he had a partner he ran with, looked like his brother. I have had contact with him so If I can remember his name he may be an alternative source.

    So now I have you back to the authors of the original AIAG manual. At one point in my career I worked with a guy who was part of a group of people who created the first automatic flush valve for toilets. It was amazingly simple and worked. It flushed a toilet. Now they have become more complex and there are people who specialize in automatic flush valves. Enough with the valve – leave it alone. Since we stated incorporating MSA into the Six Sigma methodology it has become more and more complex in terms of analysis. It has become a toilet flush valve of analysis. I do not want to be resistant to change but there is one question you answer before any other – is this measurement system good enough to do what I need it to do?

    Now Robert Butler sent me a paper he had written with a MSA on a device that measure pressure. I am not sure How much of that I can disclose but if you see the measurement device and its application you will NEVER accept anyone telling you that something cannot be measured again. Maybe you can convince him to divulge some of it. I was extremely impressed.

    And for all you transactional guys out there that believe MSA doesn’t apply. It was the root cause to the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis. It was critical in the Theranos fraud. Smart people have lost millions because they wander around mumbling about Big Data and never as about quality of the data (MSA). You need to understand this concept.

    1
    #238984

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ahance You need to begin with your data rather than a fishbone diagram. What type of defects are you seeing. If you have under weight parts or incomplete parts then you are probably getting short shots. Once you have something tangible to work on you look for the X’s that control the Y’s. remember Y=f(x). Effective SPC is on the x. If you control the x’s (independent variables) then the Y (dependent variable) will be good. Basically if I control shot size then I have part weight pretty well under control.

    The problem you are going to have with injection molding machines is if they are relatively new they have some pretty good controllers on them. You can chart things like time to close but it isn’t going to change much and if it does it will be because that is what the controller allows. If I were you the first thing I would control is temperature of the water into the machine and the flow rate. That water temp and flow rate have a lot to do with how fast you can run the machine. Look at a profile of the program that runs the machine. Typically the time to cool is the longest time in the cycle. There typically isn’t much in the way of machine controls on the machine it assumes the chiller is taking care of that. The chiller controls are at the chiller not the machine so if you get a plugged line in the machine you will never see it beyond your run times getting longer. This a huge hole in injection molding control.

    Same issue you saw on water. What happens when every machine is running at the same time. What is the psi at the machine. Your compressors may be putting out 120 psi but that has nothing to do with the machine.

    Your leverage is in the common systems air and water affect the entire plant. Those systems can improve the performance of the entire plant.

    Hydraulic systems are at a machine level typically. That oil needs to be clean and stay clean. You can chart it but from an operations point of view it makes more sense to get a cleaning system and clean the oil at least monthly.

    Look at your cost of colorant. Very expensive. If it gets out of control it will cost you a lot of money. There are a lot of ways to deliver it to the machine depending on how you supply material to the machine. That is worth looking at in terms of control of amount and mixing.

    Just a summary. Start with common systems – air and water. Colorant maybe depending on how it is delivered to the machine. Once the common systems are under control you will take the system level noise out of the machine. Look at the data by machine and by part. If I can run a mold on two different machines and have the same defects then check the mold. If the defects are different then start to look at the machine. You can put SPC on things that already have controls but it is a waste of time but make sure you have a way to evaluate the sensors for the controls. The controller will do what you told it to do but the sensors need to be accurate and precise (basic Measurement System Analysis – 5 factors)

    This is a pretty simple process to control but you need to understand that there are 4 systems in every machine 1. electrical 2. mechanical 3. pneumatic 4. Hydraulic each system has to operate in control and then they have to operate together in control.

    You can run SPC on your material or ask it from your suppliers. If you run regrind and you are one of those facilities that has this magic number for % regrind you could put SPC on that.

    In general if your customer is just carte blanc asking for SPC and doesn’t have a clue what your process is they are relatively uneducated in terms of controlling a process. They are checking boxes so determine where you will gain something from the SPC and put it there. Have data available that demonstrates that you machine controllers are doing their job and SPC will be redundant and add cost. You will get the occasional person who will tell you Deming said that controllers will not do the job. Remind them that Dr. Deming passed 25 years ago (1993) and never saw the technology we have available today.

    Just my opinion

    2
    #238954

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @johnny1287 This whole “is SS applicable to Project/Program Management” thing has been going on for years. If you do a Google search you get 58M hit in 0.62 seconds.

    2
    #238646

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @wako I sent Chris the link to this discussion.

    0
    #238637

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @wako My first choice would be Chris Assad. I am not sure exactly where he lives but he will be close to Joburg. He has been a MBB since 2005 and has done work all around sub Saharan Africa. He is at csassad@gmail.com

    If you have trouble reaching him you can email me at mike.carnell@csintlinc.com and I will find him for you.

    0
    #238601

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Straydog Just to be clear I am not trying to change your mind. I am comfortable with us differing on things. I am not a fan of mandatory consensus. I spent time in a computer manufacturing company in the early 90’s. I watched that mandatory consensus thing used by particular managers to kill very good ideas just by sending in people with explicit instruction to disagree.

    I have also never felt compelled to follow the AIAG manual or almost any other book and/or document (unless it affects safety). It is a great place to begin but if you look at Severity ranking created by an automotive group they are probably not adequate for a group that manufactured Depends or rubber grommets for shock absorbers. We tell people to “think outside the box” which is defined as “Think in an original or creative way” then following a manual or even mandatory consensus is a “box.”

    In terms of RPN separation I have seen people truncate the scale to force separation. Same thing with an I/O matrix. I am not sure that them being close is as much a problem as why people don’t see a difference unless of course they don’t see a difference in anything.

    Here is the issue I see with a FMEA as a “project.” Projects have beginnings and ends. An FMEA by design is meant to be a living document. I worked with a person who actually used an FMEA to manage his factory. He folded it in half and carried it in his shirt pocket so he definitely had the appearance of an engineer. If you went to speak to him about something you were working on, you would have to pause while he found it on the FMEA. He would use the RPN to decide if you were doing something to move the factory forward. If you were working on something with a low RPN then he would ask you why you were doing what you were doing. Basically if you thought it was important then the FMEA was wrong and you were to correct it. If you fixed something you updated it. It took about 60 days to get people to recognize that the accuracy of the RPN was more than some esoteric exercise. It was the priority system for improving the factory and it worked.

    So we have a difference of opinion and we have both made our case. Doesn’t either of us right or wrong just different. I know you have significant practical experience so I respect your opinion. I am good with that.

    Regards,
    Mike

    2
    #238579

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Straydog Absolutely no argument on this being a team exercise. Here is the issue I have with making this opinion based. There are facts based on the work you have done i.e. Frequency of Occurrence derived from a capability study. Now if I make this a team based decision and I have a capability number there are only one of 2 options 1. the number is correct 2 the number is incorrect but then so is the capability study so how do we get the two to match? Detection for MSA – same thing.

    You stated “An FMEA is a team exercise to identify and arrive at consensus on RPN factors.” I can use the data that the team generated in Design and Measure. Unless they disagree with the studies they are now facts. Why would you choose to insert opinion over fact? The Process Map for process steps is a fact. Just because someone doesn’t agree doesn’t make the exercise better it actually makes it worse unless the process map was done incorrectly.

    Just because these are not done in a “brainstorming” type environment does not mean they are not a team exercise.

    1
    #238534

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @stef The attachment I forgot to add to the previous post

    0
    #238533

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @stef I stuck this together so you could see what I was talking about. if you use the data from the Define and Measure phase to calculate the RPN then the RPN should create the information you need to set priorities for Analyze.

    The action plan (on the FMEA) is basically what you need to do in Analyze to sort out where the root cause(s) are. Everybody talks like RCA is different than DMAIC when DMAIC is actually RCA without all the kumbaya “analysis.”

    0
    #238531

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @stef This is a pretty old slide. Just some thoughts from a long time ago.

    0
    #238527

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @stef There is no way I would second guess @rbutler on statistics particularly DOE. Anything you get from him will be better than advice you will get almost anywhere. @cseider is good too but he kind of held back some although his advice to not spend all of your money on one experiment is dead on particularly if you are running a fractional factorial.

    My 2 cents worth. If you are running more than 5 factors you need to have someone who is really good look at your design. That is a lot of runs and managing 32 runs or more is difficult.

    Watch the amount of time you are going to spend. If it is going to take a couple days to build then you need to have a way to measure the day to day variation. Even if you think it will not make a difference someone will ask and you need to be prepared to address it.

    The smoothest DOE I ever saw run was one where the team did a FMEA on the DOE. They were proactively looking for issues in a systemic way. You do not want to get in the middle of this and have everything go south on you. It is expensive.

    Control is huge. You are going to manipulate some factors and make assumptions about those factors with the understanding everything else was controlled i.e. environment, raw material, tool wear, people, etc. Have a plan to control everything. There is a thing called selective attention. It can wreck a DOE in a heartbeat. This video may help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

    Good luck

    0
    #238526

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @stef If you look at every tool in the Define and Measure Phase you can use that information in the FMEA. @cseider said you can use capability studies to do Frequency of Occurrence, MSA for Detection, Process Map for steps, etc. You can use the FMEA to synthesize all the information form the Design and Measure Phase.

    The RPN’s can be used to develop your priorities/plan for the Measure Phase and you can track the Measure Phase results in the actions recommended section to the right of the RPN’s.

    I will have to dig through some old files but I have a slide somewhere that details where you get data to fill in the FMEA rather than make it some kumbaya exercise

    0
    #238496

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ahiru-san If people won’t speak to you that is generally a trust issue. Do they not trust you, the company, the people they work for, etc. That can take a while to fix. There are people in every factory that keep notes, store data, etc. in an informal way just because it is their nature. They will give it to you frequently if you speak to them one on one and they trust you.

    Lets assume you just need to do something now. When you complete a “large scale scrap event” have a post mortem with the team and then invite some other people from other processes to sit in on the review. Maybe being in the crowd and having a discussion about something that is not their issue will loosen them up. After the post mortem find them one on one and thank them for their participation. First because you should, second people like to be appreciated, third it will start you building a relationship.

    Another thing you can do is hold brown bag lunches every 3-4 weeks. Have one of you projects present and then a Q&A. Eventually if you get them there people will open up.

    What you should do some reading on is what is called tacit knowledge transfer. It is a large issue as the Baby Boomers are retiring. How do you extract that knowledge they have before they pack up and move to Florida? This has a fair amount of research behind it. If you want to get in touch with someone who can help you with this email me at mike.carnell@csintlinc.com. I can connect you with a woman who can do this for you or coach you. I just don’t have her permission to put her contact information up here.

    0
    #238493

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @moser I am with @cseider on this. I have never heard the term process scope. Just looking at it logically a process is defined for you by the way things are structured either by engineering, physics, first principles, etc.

    Project is pretty much your call. It can be multiple processes or it can be part of a process.

    1
    #238459

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @marines Google it. There are videos all over the internet.

    0
    #238357

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @erik2018 The difference between a dependent variable and an independent variable is that the dependent variable is simply a function of other things. Output is dependent on the bottleneck because output can never be greater than the bottleneck. Output doesn’t control the bottleneck the bottleneck controls the output. There will be other variable in a model of the line that have more influence than others. I would look at the top 3 constraints. If Operation A is my bottleneck and it runs at 10 per hour then you set up your line to run at 10 per hour and hope that actually meets the takt time requirement. So you are saying the volume varies and you work on the bottleneck so it can produce 15 but Operation B is maxed out at 12 then when you move to 15 your bottleneck shifts.

    There are two issues. First as long as your volume varies then the relationship of process cycle times across the entire line is important. The other issue is why is the volume shifting and can you level load . If you can do that then the control issue becomes much simpler.

    Now that we know your control chart is not being used for control Chris Seiders (@cseider) comment about a run chart makes even more sense. Plot two lines on a run chart – the target and the output (if you want to stay with output). It might make more sense to plot target output and bottleneck but that is going to have to take into consideration the time lag between output and bottleneck output. At some level it is a lagging factor. Understanding that could be extremely interesting as well.

    The changing volumes are driven by whom? Are you responding to a customer?

    0
    #238208

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @erik2018 @cseider @rbutler I think both Robert and Chris gave great advice which they always do.

    My question is why do you want to chart output? Output is a dependent variable. The hour is over and now you look at your chart and find out you are out of control. Now what? You still don’t know anything so you need to investigate meanwhile what ever made you run out of control is continuing to make you run out of control. I would think at the very least you would want a chart (I agree with Chris it should be a run chart not a control chart) on the bottleneck and I am not sure I would be plotting by the hour if you are running any volume. (Think about your Lean basics and takt time – output in relation to time)

    There used to be this thing in SS Y = f(X) where Y is the dependent variable and X is the independent variables. I am not trying to sell you Six Sigma but you can waste your time playing with a dependent variable all day long and nothing will change until you do some thing about the X’s. You will get those people that are going to push back and tell you how there are hundreds of variables that can effect it. That is a resistance to change tactic. They through out some outlier that occurs every time Halley’s Comet shows up.

    The most I have ever seen, leverage X’s, is 5 and that has only a been few times. Probably 3 is most common. Put in 3 run charts on independent variables so when it goes south you know where the issue is or one chart on the output and spend another hour figuring it out.

    You probably have some old time quality person or a MBB that thinks a Control Chart is the answer to everything. They aren’t. With the technology we have today the concept of “control” is more difficult to understand in terms of what to control than how to control it.

    Just my opinion.

    1
    #238169

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @qualitymx If you continue to try to manage your inventory levels based on customer orders and lead times then you are always going to carry more inventory than you need. You need to understand your customers customer. I would think your production planning department already has a model? If not then they aren’t really doing production planning they are order clerks. If you do create a model and it works you need to protect those people who manage it. The minute it misses there will be those people (particularly old timers) who want them fired. As long as over time you are ahead of the customer then they are doing what they need to do.

    1
    #238168

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @dsantillanes @karthikdharmalingam @cseider Lets start with the basic question what makes a good “Belt?” We have data (Mr. Seider is part of that data set) from North and South America, Africa and Australia from a tool called Predictive Index (PI) that there is a profile that is 100% successful. Not exclusive though. That profile looks like this: High A – confidence comes from within; B – doesn’t matter although High B’s like to talk a lot so I find they can be irritating – at least for me – over extended periods of time; Low C – impatient – don’t like repetitive tasks which works well with consulting; Middle to Low D – sensitivity to criticism which translates to not being risk averse – this means they are average to don’t care on criticism. This is the same profile that in a study of 200 self made millionaires in Europe was the common profile. The width of the profile can be important as well.

    There are nuances of course like the D being higher than the A which makes then extremely risk averse, the B and the A both being high but the B is Higher than the A so they will sell you out to be part of what they perceive as the Boys Club and the Maverick profile Highest A, High B, Low C Lowest D – a straight line – absolutely no fear of risk and will risk anything for success. The Maverick isn’t a bad profile but you need to be aware of what it is. Now PI professionals will not necessarily agree with me on all of this but then their job is to sell PI. I have had to be responsible for delivering results so this works for me be cause it takes the most unpredictable of the variables (people) and can help you understand how they will react.

    All that said they do need a normal to high IQ. I am not sure how to be kind about this but as my South African friend says they cannot be dof (pronounced like it has an “r” in it – dorf). Generally speaking that means an IQ above 85 if you believe IQ scores to be normally distributed. Between DMAIC being a thought process (not a tool set) and the software that is available for tools and analysis you really do not need to be a genius to make a project achieve some level benefits.

    You see all this nonsense about difference in cultures and differences in industry. It has nothing to do with it, within reason. Obviously you need to be very aware of something such as a religious belief. These profiles are who a person is in their DNA. If you create the right environment this profile will surface and they will show you who they really are by nature.

    I am not sure SS creates the success as much as it demonstrates to a person with this profile, what they are capable of. Once they understand the power of their profile they have the confidence to drive change. I grew up inside Motorola so the DMAIC thing was not an epiphany. I left Motorola to work in a bowling ball factory. I had a whole new respect for the methodology (not a specific tool set) once I had been there a while. I had to change product type where I had zero experience, no connection to 99.9% of the people and the process technology was completely different. This is where the High A makes a difference – in your head you never consider failure because you are just confident if you are doing it then it will work.

    I think you need to be very careful when you speak about a “successful” consultant. You need to define success. Look at Linkedin. There is a guy on there that claims to have 1.5 million connections. He may or may not, I never checked because I think it is a ridiculous metric. If connections is you measure of success then he is successful. Look at what he publishes. It is obsequious dribble designed to attract people who want to read obsequious dribble. They have a very large mutual admiration society but are they as a group of any consequence? They are actually irrelevant. Reveling in misery makes you inert. (@michaelcyger you taught me that word “irrelevant” in terms of this business at that meeting in Michigan)

    My apologies for rambling but it is a rainy day, flowers are blooming and the computer is beside a window.

    Just my opinion.

    3
    #238094

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jmiller2019 you are welcome

    1
    #238093

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @karthikdharmalingam Auditing is a waste of time and money if you have automation. If it is actually at 99% anything less than 100% audit (which isn’t an audit it is sorting). Anytime you are under about 10% defective you are pretty much wasting time with a sample.

    You should have never bought off on 99%. You are operating at a Cpk less than 1.0. That has been passed for about the past 20 years. I would get the robot people in and tell them you need at least a Cpk of 1.5.

    0
    #238071

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jmiller2019 I would create a document,screen, etc. that specifies how to pack a pallet. Actually you can have your packers help create it. It becomes standard work and if you have a process you are less likely to have them miss something.

    0
    #238064

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @karthikdharmalingam This was the same thing we used to do at Motorola. Customers would set up a product and require a 5% (must be a popular number) deduction in their cost – our selling price per year. We would target more so as their price went down our profit was increasing. If you are $5M then you need $250k.

    If you take your product price and create a tree diagram backwards i.e first box is the cost to process a transaction. Cost splits up between labor, overhead and material. I assume material is negligible to how does labor split? If I have multiple places doing the same process, do they take the same amount of time (there is a high probability this will come down to processing time). Keep going back until you understand where your total cost id coming from.

    You are probably taking a big hit from cost allocations by accounting since you have 300+ people. Do not be afraid to challenge those allocations. Most are just BS. If they tell you they cannot do it any other way the take whatever percentage of your reduction target is from their allocations and get management to set a cost reduction target for them as well. Do not let them drive you into that box that says you take it out of your cost but the accountants sit over here in the corner and don’t do anything – remind them they are part of your cost and they are non-value add.

    0
    #238036

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jmiller2019 Does your customer have requirements on how to pack a skid? If they don’t then you can create your own (standardized Work). It can help you with consistency and accuracy as well.

    0
    #238030

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @tbillow I have no idea how much your product weighs but this is what we have done in the past. Your pick sheet knows what you need to pick to fill an order. If you attach it to a data base that knows how much product will weigh (range) that way you should know How much the order should weigh. You can do a couple things here. Pick the whole list and weigh it but if you are short you will need to figure out what you are short. If you can pick to a scale you will make sure you pick the correct amount. When you are done you know how much the order weighs so if you have to palletize then you weigh the pallet or zero the scale and transfer.

    If you have those self checkout deals at Home Depot it is similar. You can also get weigh bridges/conveyor scales that will weigh on the fly.

    If you can weigh as you pick it will increase your pick accuracy, reduce shrinkage and reduce rework. Management can get a little hyper when you propose buying scales but compared to rework cost and shrinkage it is negligible. I would calculate those numbers just for a baseline for any improvements you do.

    0
    #238011

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @tbillow Your solution is to add an inspection step to make sure they did it right? You can Mistake proof this an not need to do that i.e. spend the money. From the pick sheet you should be able to calculate a weight range that is acceptable if it is filled properly. Weigh it when you stage it and weigh it when you pack it. There are scales that will weigh it on the move. Why would you tear it apart?

    1
    #237826

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @cseider There have always been a few that didn’t track benefits. The company culture has to be a real outlier to sustain this. It can also kill a deployment in a hurry. It is tradition in most companies at around Q3 people start shutting down expenses, particularly expenses that are perceived as not adding value. If you do not track financial benefits you are just loading the gun of every passive aggressive manager that doesn’t want a program that drives change.

    Selecting projects without financial data? I cannot imagine doing that but the entire Lean initiative drives on it. You hear them saying “If you are asking about financial benefits you are asking the wrong question.” I wonder if they do the same with CapEx projects? There was a discussion on LinkedIn about ROI calculations. One of the higher visibility Lean guys asked about the ROI and calculating ROI. That was pretty close to the dumbest comment I have seen in this millennium.

    0
    #237762

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @jmiller2019 Can I pick it and not put it on the pallet?

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 6,294 total)