1.5S Debate Status: Failure to Submitt

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General 1.5S Debate Status: Failure to Submitt

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #36184

    Reigle Stewart

    Stan: As of close-of-business July 15th 2004, your resume and white paper (for the defined topic) was not delivered to Arizona State University (e.g., to Dr. Douglas Montgomery or Mr. Jeff Goss), nor have you contacted either of these gentlemen (before or after the deadline) to seek an extension. Based on your failure to meet the basic submission requirements, coupled with the total absence of communication, it is my responsibility to inform you that your position is now in a state of default. Today, the debate arrangements, logistics, and facility were canceled. The referees have unanimously agreed that your intention to contest Dr. Harry’s position (as defined in his book) was not made in earnest or carried forward in a professional manner (due to the absence of any form of courteous communication – e-mail, phone, fax, or letter). Consequently, this issue is considered “closed.” Respectfully, Reigle Stewart



    No more pretense about a debate?
    No more from you about the 1.5 shift?
    Be still my beating heart.



    I have been following this whole 1.5 shift debate issue and have now drawn several personal conclusions.  I have been practicing advanced statistics and engineering in several corporations for many years.  I have also worked in manufacturing and design engineering.  With a great deal of anticipation I was looking forward to the great debate about the six sigma shift principle.
    The purpose of this post is to unearth the opinions of others like me; people that seldom post but carefully follow the issues.
    I have studied Mikel Harry’s book on the subject and digested the posts of Stan, Reigle, Statman, Darth and the others that have contributed to this issue.  My opinions about the shift factor being put aside, I must confess that:
    1)      Harry has clearly set forth his position within his book; like it or not.
    2)      Stewart’s posts on the topic largely mirrors what is in the book.
    3)      Darth has read the book and concurs with the math, but questions the assumptions
    4)      Statman provided some technical counter arguments, but did not use the same assumptions or application context.
    5)      Others have provided their opinions and experiences.
    This now brings me to the contribution of Stan in this whole matter.  Over the course of time I have observed the following about this contributor and poster:
    1)      In the beginning Stan said the shift concept was not real but then reversed his position by saying the shift is real but not 1.5 sigma.
    2)      Stan attempted to relate the shift factor to the population mean but Harry’s book unambiguously relates the shift factor to random differences between sampling subgroups averages.
    3)      Stan then said he accepted the challenge for a debate and would prepare a paper on the subject.  This was months ago.
    4)      Stan evaded the first scheduled debate time and then Stewart arranged another.
    5)      Stan latter said he submitted the paper to ASU but Stewart says no such paper was received.  I personally believe that Stewart and ASU would not deceive us about that.
    6)      Stan said the entire debate was a “sham” and only a salesman’s ploy, but then recently says he investigated it and the debate was “real.”  Today Stan says in a post to Stewart that the debate was a “pretense” Another reversal of a reversal on Stan’s part.
    7)      Stan has consistently made personal attacks against Harry, Stewart, Darth and many others; especially anyone else that disagrees with his position or agrees with the opposing position.
    8)      Stan now says he is actually several people; all being Master’s or PhD’s.  But yet all of these highly educated individuals are not able provide a paper to ASU or disclose their names and credentials?  Why can’t Stan post his paper on this website?
    9)      Stan is now downplaying the debate and is back to attacking Stewart.
    10)  The list goes on and on like a never ending cat and mouse game.
    Stewart seems to be earnest and straight forward about things.  It seems to me that the only real “sham” is Stan or Stan’s or John Doe’s or Ms. Doe’s or whoever or whomever Stan actually is.  It is true that Darth and Stewart and some of these other people get a little hot under the collar, but in most instances they back off and apologize and move on.  But Stan is always on the attack; assaulting not only ideas but their character of the personalities. 
    I have finally reached my limit.  I very much enjoy this website and the discussion forum but no longer hold respect for a poster who can’t come out from behind the curtain and debate the issues in a professional and public manner; especially one that has sour grapes with an obvious ax to grind.
    The debate would have been a great opportunity for the six sigma community to gain many invaluable insights into the practice of six sigma; and even entertaining.  The bottom line is simple.  Stan let us down in a big way.  Although he is obviously not a thought leader he does occasionally provide some good insights.  But now I question the credibility of these insights.  It may be that the only ruse has been the cluster of misguided talent called “Stan.”
    How does everyone else feel about this?



    I feel that you are Reigle Stewart, you rascal.



    Dear Mr. Disappointed,
    I agree with you completely. I am disgusted by these people who do not post under their own name. Just a question – do you hold it against your parents that they named you Disappointed?
    Just a thought. You may want to hone your reading skills. The debate was never real and I never said it was. I have never attacked Darth, nor would I.
    If the esteemed Dr. will post his book out here for free, I’ll post a position paper for free. Since when do you think things in life are for free?
    Have you read the book? No, I thought so. Go read the book and make your own judgements based on real data and real experience.
    I have never pretended to be anything but what I am out here. Reigle showed up on here to promote the book and to promote 3rd gen SS. He has no real opinions. 
    If you want a real debate, let Mikel or Doug or Bert come on here. Truth is, the whole thing in RS’s imagination. Think about it, why would Doug Montgomery get involved in a petty little bickering match over an internet forum? Answer – he would not, at least not using his own name.
    This shift thing is simple, processes are not as good in the long term as they are in snapshots – account for it. I contend, and companies like Toyota and Freudenberg NOK and apparently Andy U’s company know, that we know how well a process can be controlled. Account for it, but don’t use some arbitrary fudge factor. 
    I truely am sorry about the name your parents gave you by the way. 



    Are you now, or have you ever, been associated with any of the parties you name in this post? Honesty, please.
    Do you know any of these individuals personally? Again, honesty, please.
    I agree with some of what you have said, if you are truly an outside observer and never been trained or associated with some of the parties mentioned. If not, you have a bias. Your post looks biased. My opinion.
    I am not associated with any of the parties, but would like to see an eventual conclusion to the mystical 1.5 sigma shift myself, but not only a mathematical proving on paper, but also realistic discussion about the dogma of the 1.5 sigma shift.
    It makes it difficult for Joe Everyman to think he’ll ever achieve that level of precision. And nearly every general interest business book mentions the finite level of 3.4 DPMO in its explanation, and nearly nothing else.Peter Drucker said “Most of the time it is very hard work to get a very few simple things across so that ordinary people can do them.” The 1.5 sigma shift makes it hard to understand, and therefore difficult to buy into.
    Thank you for your contribution, are you truly independent of bias; or staging another round of this endless cycle. The 1.5 sigma shift is important; Harry lists in the e-book promotion a primary pillar, and earlier this week I searched and found 900 individual posts related to this question. People want to talk about it.
    How can we make it safe for our best talents to openly challenge the established “leaders and the muscle” in this industry, so novice, green belts, and everyone, including consultants and company presidents can benefit? Can we really remove the insulation to expose the truth?
    A huge, major Dow listed corporation was successful using the tools of Six Sigma for reasons other than just the package. Yet, everyone thinks results like this are achieveable using the tools. Hardly.
    Would Six Sigma be even discussed had Larry Bossidy been a good buddy, and close friend of “INSERT NEARLY ANY CHAIRMAN, CEO’s NAME HERE” and was asked to speak in his absence to his senior officers after surgery. I don’t think we’ed be here now. But this one example is the one everyone around the globe remembers. And its getting worse, although even adopters of 2 years ago are not achieving the results they were promised, expected, or wished for, (your choice of terms, depending on your usage of the tools.) 
    Thank you for your post.



    To the king of flip-flop, Stan:
    I thought you might need some clarification concerning the statistical stability of your stated position(s).  Like a incumbant politician attempting to get elected, you do not seem to be able to remember what you have said when; especially in the not so recent past.  I will now put your own words back to you for self-assessment.
    Stan now says (today):
    Just a thought. You may want to hone your reading skills. The debate was never real and I never said it was. I have never attacked Darth, nor would I.
    In an earlier post, Stan said:
    As far as finding out if this [the debate ] was real? – the answer is yes.
    Stan latter said on Friday, 16th July 2004, 11:39 AM:
    The debate is a scam, I said I knew the truth about it.
    As posted by Darth:
    … I have recently read Harry’s book and my conclusion was that, based on his very limiting assumptions he is probably right in his 1.46 almost 1.5 shift … There is no argument there.  Stan wants to debate the practicality of the 1.5 shift and the attempt of some practioners to make it a universal truth.  I give Harry credit for laying out his strict assumptions, repeatedly mentioning them and leaving the misapplication of his 1.5 shift to others.
    Now you tell me, are you flipping the issue like a pancake at a fast order grill or what?



    I said –
     As far as finding out if this [the debate ] was real? – the answer is yes.
    Yes, I found out if the debate was real. It is not.
    I answered yes, I found out; not yes the debate is real.
    And for Darth’s statement – I agree with what he says – based on the Dr’s assumptions, the mathematical manipulations are correct.
    The assumptions are flawed. I have shown it, Gabriel has shown it, Andy U. has shown it and you too can show yourself in the confort of your own home. Go do it.



    To my esteemed associate, Phil:
    Association or no association, my affiliation with any of the parties has little to do with the outlandish breach of professionalism that Stan has propagated on the six sigma community.  The audacity to accept a challenge, make false claims of submitting a paper is beyond belief, at least among those of use that do publish new ideas. 
    Yes, I agree with you that the discipline of six sigma must be advanced by the ways of debate, challenge, discussion and intellectual migration/evolution.  Every idea must be examined and interrogated, but in an appropriate forum.  This forum is much like intellectual anarchy.  How much order can be realized with anarchy prevails.
    Phil, I am sure you are not implying that the means justifies the end.  Most professionals would likely agree that progress should be made in a civil and respectful environment.  A simple review of the threads related to this topic will assuredly reveal that this forum is not the place to hammer out the details of a highly technical and emotional issue.  This is why the debate was so important.  Here you have the top expert in the world willing to debate the issue in front of world-class referees; but the second contestant fails to deliver anything except more rhetoric and character attacks. 
    Above and beyond all, we must never allow the bullies of anonymous means and ways to mask the intellectual nuggets of those that are on the cutting edge of a discipline.  Beyond any doubt, this guy Stan is not on the cutting edge of anything related to the pursuit of six sigma.  He attempts to make himself out to be a prophet by reading Monday’s headlines on Tuesday evening and then declaring himself to have foreseen it all. 
    As I pointed out in my previous post; Stan’s statements-of-fact varies more than a random walk on a multi-vari chart.  For someone to make a true contribution, their efforts must be consistent and credible, of which Stan has shown contempt for both.  I was once told that trust can be lost by the omission and commission of information.  A simple review of Stan’s posts will show that he regularly omits and alters information to make it fit at the moment.
    I am sorry, but this will be my last word on this subject.



    “we must never allow the bullies of anonymous means” ?????????????
    Disappointed, Statman Too, Guess Who, …. How many names you come on here with Reigle? I come with but 1.
    This is, and always has been about promotion of your business – I have just pointed that out to everyone. And to stick with your story about having set up the debate – who are you trying to kid?
    Just one request, please, please, please say its true that this is your last communication on the subject of the 1.5 sigma shift.  
    And if you could stop promoting your business in general, I know and you know you have a real contribution to make here.


    Carlos Herrara

    To Dissapointed,
    You say, “Most professionals would likely agree that progress should be made in a civil and respectful environment.”
    Maybe Stan doesn’t feel like Riegel would foster a civil and respectful environment? I wouldn’t either, to be honest.
    You also say, “Above and beyond all, we must never allow the bullies of anonymous means and ways to mask the intellectual nuggets of those that are on the cutting edge of a discipline.”
    Isn’t that, in fact, what you are trying to do?
    I believe, based on writing styles, that this posting is actually “Riegel” — not “Dissapointed”. The bullying continues.
    To the Forum Moderators:
    I would like to request that you investigate by IP address who is actually posting on this thread. Is it against the rules to post under multiple names in order to support your own opinion about a topic? I think it should be. If nothing else, it reflects a person’s integrity and at the end of the day it’s that person that has to look him or herself in the mirror.


    I’m Convinced

    Stan said:  “If you want a real debate, let Mikel or Doug or Bert comeon here. Truth is, the whole thing in RS’s imagination. Think about it,why would Doug Montgomery get involved in a petty little bickering matchover an internet forum? Answer – he would not, at least not using hisown name.”Well part of what Stan says here is correct.  I couldn’t imagine anactively teaching professor wasting his time replying to posts on amessage board.  Maybe that’s why we don’t see him on here.  So thequestion becomes, was the debate ever real and was Dr. Keats or Dr.Montgomery ever REALLY involved. I don’t know why anyone hasn’t thought of this earlier, but being theinvestigative type, I called information for ASU.  I then got theirgeneral operator that connected me with the Ira A. Fulton School ofEngineering, Center for Professional Development.  That operator thenconnected me with a voice mail and I left a message for Mr. Goss sayingI had a question for him regarding a debate that he was listed as acontact.  Surprisingly he called me back in about 20 minutes.  When Ispoke with Mr. Goss I explained I was trying to see if there was a”debate” scheduled with some faculty and if he was a contact for it.  Igave him the date and he immediately responded that yes he was thecontact but that it had just been cancelled.  When I asked why, he saidthat the pre-requisites for the debate had not been met by both partiesinvolved.  I then asked if it was true that both Dr. Keats and Dr.Montgomery had been scheduled for the debate.  He said that yes, thosewhere the referees for the debate.  I told him that I knew Dr. Harry wasinvolved with the debate and asked if he had met the prerequisite?  Heanswered “yes, we received Dr. Harry’s information”.I guess in my mind this clears it up that “the debate” WAS real, up tothe point that Stan failed to submit his paper that is.


    Reigle Stewart

    Anyone and everyone is fully capable of calling Mr. Jeff Goss at the Center for Professional Development, College of Engineering, ASU.  A simple phone call will confirm:
    A) The debate was (in fact) scheduled for the given time (July 29th)
    B) You did not contact either Mr. Goss or Dr. Montgomery
    C) Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Keats established the requirements
    C) Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Keats blocked the time on July 29th
    D) Dr. Harry complied with all of the debate specifications.
    It is most unfortunate that you seek to continue this personal war of yours to discredit the accomplishments of others.  I will no longer participate in future discussions with you since your “word” has proven to be false.
    Reigle Stewart

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.