Forum Replies Created
Forum Replies Created
December 17, 2008 at 8:11 am #178795
I think the main point of the discussion was whether Six Sigma methodology is a practical approach to follow in the service industry. I think it certainly is, because it is not just a set of tools, but a complete philosophy of how to look at processes / activities and how to approach them towards making the output of such processes more predicatble and consistent.
Any tool is only as good as the person using it, and that applies to the tools used in any process improvement initiative as well.
The end goal is delivering what the customer wants, and delivering that reliably and consistently. What industry one represents is secondary.
Why must we feel that we cannot hope to achieve a high degree of reliability in people-driven, transactional systems? Why can’t i ensure that if the upper spec limit is deliver within 3 days, my processes ensure that i meet that spec?0May 23, 2005 at 7:47 am #119934
For comparing Comparing 2 Distributions, – ( when data is not normal ) you can go for the Test of Medians..
i suggest to do Kuskall- Wallis test of Medians.. here…
vin0May 20, 2005 at 9:22 am #119787
One thought went through my mind , as i was going through all the messages where, You all missed one Important point which is very critical for Six Sigma Implementation in an Organization.
Top Management Commitment- Six Sigma is a Business tool to Solve problems to Improve the Bottom Line of a Business..
So Who should Drive this and Define Business case for the Projects.- it should be from the Top Management..
since the an Organisation will have Vast Domans, Like Sales and Mktg, Operations, Ordermanagement, Accounts and Finance, Quality, Supply Chain and a business case can’t be Achieved in Just focussing on One Domain.
So the Deployment MBB should co-ordinate a Meeting with Champion ( Director or CEO ) to Define the business case and Target and Communicate this to the Head of Dept. of Each Functions ( Sponsors..) so Let the sponsor Define the project and The Team Leader who can Lead this project Linked to the Business CASE..
In the initial Stages of Six Sigma deployment- Top Management commitment is so Essential to Drive the projects to make the Leaders come out from the Inertia and prpgress..
It can be monthly review with Toll Gate review for Each DMAIC phase..
its one of the Tough Journey and Perseverance is the key for the Management, Support MBB’s and you have to keep pushing to make things happen..Once the wheel starts rolling, it can go a Long way..
for any further info and discussion pls mail- [email protected]0April 26, 2005 at 6:36 pm #118441
Please email me a copy of ur case study to [email protected]0March 16, 2005 at 6:47 am #63833
First you have to identify the problem..
is it the Lead time for transactions are more..or Response time for Customer complaints..then u have to map the Entire process ” as the way it is running now..” and Define the boundaries…
then u have to create a SIPOC for the process needs improvement..and identify your customers..
then u can ask your customers for VOC specific to the problem, wat do they think abt that..So u will get some inputs from the concerned customers and and u cna drill down the VOC in to CTQ’s..
U may feel this subject a bit dry, in theory but very interesting when u really do an exercise…
Half Job is done, when u identified the Problem and the right CTQ’s to measure….then the project will kick off by itself..
0March 16, 2005 at 6:43 am #63832
Wat is the0September 1, 2004 at 10:31 am #106676
As all of you aware each companies have their own Crterias for certification Like for GE, NCR, Wipro etc..
if you are looking for a common certification–that is recognised through out the world and good enough is ASQ certification..
u can Go throug the American Society of Quality ( ASQ ) Web site and get the required information regarding the syllabus, Mode of exam etc..
0May 31, 2002 at 1:57 pm #75994
By the way, the opinion I voiced in the first paragraph of my last post pertains specifically to the hypothetical process I mentioned in that paragraph, NOT to JohnK’s process. Depending on the specific circumstances around JohnK’s process (e.g. Is this the most problematic process in the company? Is the characteristic being measured considered Critical and relates to a high RPN in his FMEA? etc.), he may want or need to work on the measurement system for it anyway.
That said, knowing JohnK’s P/T Ratio and %Total Var, we could actually derive a rough estimate of his Cp. My estimate is it is over 2. (I won’t bore you with the formula – besides, I don’t have the patience to type it all in here and it’s just a very rough estimate.)
So, the question comes up…Assuming a reasonably high Cp even using a “poor” gage (from a %Total Var standpoint), is improving the “poor” gage a top priority? Again, the answer depends on the specific circumstances around the process in question – I don’t think anybody outside the process can really give an answer for that since we don’t see the whole, big picture…0May 30, 2002 at 7:30 pm #75975
Please keep in mind that distinct categories is dependent on the total variation i.e. if you have a process sigma of 0.1″ and the tolerance is +/- 1.5″ you could end up with a very large % Study var and a very low P/T ratio. In this case, you might not necessarilly have to improve the gage, as long as P/T ratio is low, since your process is very capable and there is no immediate need to improve it. Spend the resources elsewhere…
As I said before, in my humble opinion, distinct categories and %Study Var are important for process improvement and SPC, but is not as important as P/T Ratio if you are using the gage for inspection.0May 30, 2002 at 4:12 pm #75967
My opinion – it depends on what you intend to do with the gage. Typically, 10% or less %variation and P/T ratio is considered good, anything above that is grey area up until 30% or so. Above 30% is usually deemed “unacceptable.”
If the gage is used to inspect parts and segregate good pieces from bad, then P/T ratio (% Tolerance) is the metric you should be concerned with first.
Then, if the gage is to be used to measure parts as part of a project to reduce process/product variation, then %Study Variation is important. Also, Distinct Catergories should probably be 6 or higher. (Some people say 4 or higher).
Of course, that’s just my opinion. In a perfect world, all our measurement systems would have P/T ratios and % study variation below 10%.
0May 8, 2002 at 12:30 pm #75260
RR – I’m afraid you may be oversimplifying and underestimating the Shainin tools. The two tools that you alluded to in your post (which I assume were Paired Comparison and Precontrol, respectively) are in fact powerful tools, assuming the person using it was properly trained and understood the subtleties involved.
I will concede this much – precontrol does not seem to be as robust or universally applicable as traditional SPC, but under the correct manufacturing conditions (i.e. capable process) and for the sake of simplicity, sometimes it may be the better choice.
Mike Carnell – Looking forward to your comments on this.0May 2, 2002 at 4:19 pm #75080
Mike – Are these “criticisms of Six Sigma” addressed in”Leaning Into Six Sigma”? (I read a brief write-up on it as part of an article in IndustryWeek magazine.)0April 2, 2002 at 3:51 pm #73904
Ideally, the part-to-part variation you see in your GR&R should be representative of the normal variation you would see in production. Then, proportionally you should see part-to-part variation to be significantly larger than your repeatability and reproducibility variation if you have a capable measurement system.
If the part-to-part variation you have for your GR&R study is significantly larger than what you see in regular production, then it would artificially increase the capability of your gage (it would make your %R&R number lower than it really is.) The reverse is also true – too small a part-to-part variation used in the gage study and you will artificially decrease the capability of your gage (it would make your %R&R number higher than it really is.)0March 22, 2002 at 12:06 am #73504
I believe that it basically defines how many different “buckets” you could reliably segregate product into i.e. Distinct Categories = 2, then it is a go-no-go gage; Distinct Catergories = 3 means low, med, high, etc.
By the way, you need to round down to the nearest whole number after using the equation you listed. As for the 1.41, I’m not sure, but I think that is probably derived from “the square root of the sum of the squares”, since 1.41 is the square root of 2.0March 15, 2002 at 6:02 pm #73269
If you have a lot of parts that you can measure, could you try the following?
Take 60 parts from one, homogenous (as best as you can tell) population.
Randomly divide the 60 into 2 groups of 30.
Measure first group with old gage, then second group with new gage.
Calculate variance of each group.
Total Variance = Variance of parts + Variance of gage, so assuming parts came from same population, the difference between variance of group 1 and variance of group 2 is the improvement in your gage. Take the square root of the difference of the two variances, and that should theoretically be the reduction in your sigma from the old gage to the new one. Since you have Total R and R numbers from the old system, I assume you can get the sigma of the old gage. Divide the sigma you calculated above (square root of difference of two variances) by the sigma of the old system, multiply by 100, and that should give you % improvement (actually percent reduction of measurement variability) from old process to new process.
The above sounds crazy even to me, but it may be valid. I look forward to hearing your comments.0March 13, 2002 at 3:43 pm #73163
David – My interpretation of your original post is as follows:
1) Six Sigma professionals/consultants are overpaid.
2) Six Sigma professionals/consultants are barely competent when it comes to the use of statistical tools for data analysis.
3) The Six Sigma consultants that responded with their per diem rates are probably lying.
That is my interpretation of what you originally wrote, and I imagine our colleagues that responded had a similar interpretation. That said, I think you should have expected more than just a little controversy. If my interpretation is wrong, please feel free to clarify/correct me.
Regardless, personally I would prefer that someone like yourself stays involved in this discussion forum. You can add diversity to the discussion and provide a different perspective. Although your opinions may be met with some resistance, they can also act as catalysts for fruitful exchanges of ideas.0March 11, 2002 at 3:40 pm #73090
With all due respect, I think Six Sigma focuses on applied statistics, problem solving, and business process improvement and not necessarily statisitics. Although the proper use of statistical tools is a cornerstone of the Six Sigma methodology, it does not, in and of itself, accurately and completely define what Black Belts and Master Black Belts bring to the table. Perhaps the comparison you made was not apples to apples…0March 6, 2002 at 1:51 pm #72880
Mike – No need to apologize to me (as long as your more pointed comments were not directed right at me :)
I definitely agree with you…some people have a propensity for playing “buzzword bingo” and follow the latest craze as if it were a newly-formed religion. On top of that, some people will have you believe that some of these “new” tools are groundbreaking, yet they are actually based on other tools that date back to the first half of the 20th century!
I firmly believe that commitment to any new management strategy / technique is key to its success, but also think that this needs to be tempered with some common sense and an open mind. To mindlessly follow a new methodology because it is popular is silly, to put it mildly. I am a firm believer in Six Sigma DMAIC/DMADV, but also realize that there are other tools and methods out there.
I hope that in some small way our discussion over the past few days has encouraged a few of our colleagues to explore those other tools and strategies, regardless of their popularity.0March 4, 2002 at 9:15 pm #72800
Thanks for your feedback. However, just to clarify, I would like to say that I didn’t mean Shainin was better than Six Sigma in all respects, but that it may be better suited for certain applications. I think that for a well-defined, very technical problem especially in an assembly environment, Shainin, with its Component Search and other related tools may be a better choice. Also, proper use of multi-vari charts can uncover important information, yet this is not that well-covered, at least in my opinion, in a lot of the Six Sigma training available.
If someone is working on a transactional project or is trying to build profound process knowledge on a manufacturing operation, then I believe Six Sigma is the better approach. In fact, I don’t think Shainin is even meant to be applied to transactional…
I am by no means an expert, but the above is my personal opinion. As they say, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.” I wonder if the overwhelming poplularity of Six Sigma will obscure other effective problem solving strategies like Shainin Red X…0March 4, 2002 at 1:36 pm #72760
The Shainin group has a web-site and also offers training in what they call Red X, Green Y, etc. Various levels of certification are offered (I believe they go by Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master). I don’t know if the training seminars are totally open to the public or if you have to come from a client company. Perhaps somebody else has insight on this
As far as the statistical validity of Shainin tools, I should mention that some of his more powerful techniques are based on statistical tools but were slightly transformed into more understandable and practical applications. An example of this may be B vs. C and its relationship to Tukey’s End Count. I’m not sure, but Bhote’s book may be able to clarify.
I’ve seen both Shanin/Red X and Six Sigma in action, and if I may so, depending on the application or type of problem, Shainin may be a much more efficent and effective methodology.0February 27, 2002 at 2:50 pm #72562
If I had to choose between MS Statistics and MBA, which one would be more appropriate?0February 22, 2002 at 5:15 pm #72430
Thank you for your responses. One of my reasons for asking is because I am considering going for my MBA and also going for ASQ Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) certification. Which one, if either or both, will be beneficial to me if my eventual goal is to be a Master Black Belt?
Vin0January 19, 2002 at 2:43 am #71345
Steve – I believe Six Sigma benefits companies of all sizes. However, as the others have pointed out, the start-up costs of a Six Sigma program can be quite high and may not be a viable option for smaller organizations.How about this idea: Hire 1 Six Sigma Black Belt or Green Belt into your company to fill an EXISTING open position (assuming there are open ones). That person can then be the in-house Six Sigma consultant for you, while having him/her have a full-time, regular job can help defray the cost if you are concerned about increasing overhead. Of couse, you will probably end up paying that person quite a bit more than the other candidates, but it could pay back quite quickly. Just a thought…0January 19, 2002 at 2:27 am #71344
Has anyone ever used Cpm instead of Cp or CpK? My understanding is that this is an even stricter metric than CpK since the “sigma” used in the calculation is not standard deviation around the process mean. Instead, it calculates the deviation around the nominal target and uses that “deviation”. Minitab provides a value for Cpm when you do a process capability study, assuming you provide a nominal target…0January 18, 2002 at 12:41 pm #71329
Perhaps I phrased my question wrong. What I meant was – what sort of training, experience, education, etc. should someone who eventually wants to become a Master Black Belt plan on acquiring in order to become a viable candidate for MBB in the future.
No, I am not interested in doing the bare minimum. Thanks for the offer, though.
0January 17, 2002 at 1:26 pm #71298
I am planning on taking the ASQ CSSBB exam on March 2nd and am currently reviewing using a CSSBB Primer. I also intend to purchase practice exam questions. I agree with the comments here – a large portion of the Measure and Analyze sections of the BOK seems to include manual calculations using tables (how archaic!), and it seems that the same would apply for the Improve section. Obviously, most practicing BB’s would use statistical analysis software for these tasks.
That said, I have a question for those of you who have taken the ASQ CSSBB exam. Assuming a person has had over 2 years of Six Sigma experience, completed projects, and trained 3 waves of GB’s, along with reviewing the CSSBB primer and brings that to the exam, what is the probability of success? Any pointers as far as how to prepare would be appreciated.0