A tale of wealth and greed – episode 1
Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › Old Forums › General › A tale of wealth and greed – episode 1
- This topic has 21 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Ronald.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm #46444
There was a once great company that had become mediocre. It was
run by a very wise engineer of MIT pedigree and he wished to save
the company built by the innovation and intelligence of his father.
The company had once dominated markets such as televisions,
radios, discrete semiconductors and the like but had either
completely lost or mostly lost their market share. Management
guru, Joseph Juran, ran around the US talking about the American
company that couldnt make a profit at TVs that sold their
operation to the Japanese and within 6 months, using the same
workers and same design, the Japanese turned a profit. He was
talking about this company. Key employees at this company risked
their status by publicly declaring that the company had poor
quality.
The son who is now President of the company decided to do
something about it. He first invested in the people side of things by
fostering teamwork and a better understanding of each individual.
He invested in problem solving starting with tools from a man
named Shainin. Dorian, it turns out, was a bit of a miracle worker.
He had the power to walk into an existing operation and solve
problems in a day that the people who ran the place had not solved
in a decade. He also spoke a strange language and insisted
everyone also speak this strange language if they wished to save
this once great company. Work continued as the once great
company internalized the problem solving. They hired PhD
students from the great university in the desert and put signs on
the entrances of their facilities that they were protected by this
problem solving method. They also upgraded the resources of their
quality function by hiring people with theoretical backgrounds in
quality and statistical tools. They also promoted within, especially
technically sound individuals who also had the drive to better
themselves at the great university in the desert. The once great
company made great proclamations about teamwork and
improvements which, while not generally accepted, gave a handful
of people cover to go make progress. And progress was made to
the tune of about a ten fold improvement.
This type of opportunity creates strange behaviors. Many in
leadership learned to game the measurement. Many who believed
the message challenged the games players and were forced to take
refuge in Chicago under the protection of a great physicist who
publicly proclaimed he was smarter that you, but more importantly
proclaimed go work with the people I protect or I will come help
you. No one wanted the help of this person who was smarter than
them, so progress was made. Some saw the message as an
opportunity for great personal gain especially if they spent their
time self promoting instead of making improvements. This was
made possible because people did not know how to handle these
folks taking credit for their work. Leadership did not know how to
handle these folks because they were afraid to admit they did not
understand the things being talked about purposely at a level not
to be understood. The greatest of these was one of the former
Shainin teaching PhD students from the great university in the
desert.
Fast forward seven years. The company is once again great.
Partially because they had become one of the best process
management companies in the world, on par with their Japanese
electronic competitors. Mostly because they were also once again
great innovators especially in the area of electronic
communication. The self promoters had all gathered in Mecca (just
west of downtown Chicago) and created a template of success that
had nothing to do with the actual work of the previous seven years.
One self promoter was so arrogant and obnoxious that he was sent
back to the desert within the year. This person was also the most
adept at new technologies such as Excel in all of this again great
company. He could also talk fast and gave presentations using not
one, but two, overhead projectors at a time. He still talked
nonsense and made up concepts and words and intentionally
talked over the heads of Leadership who were still in fear of
exposing their ignorance.Stay tuned for episode 2 next week.0March 16, 2007 at 4:08 pm #153483
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
Sounds like a story my father used to tell me.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 4:24 pm #153487
William J.Member@William-J.Include @William-J. in your post and this person will
be notified via email.That was good! We want more…..! We want more……!
Inquiring minds want to know! Some of us are late arrivals to the party!0March 16, 2007 at 4:31 pm #153488Wow, I do Cinderella and Thumbelina with my kids. Do you recommend that I switch them to these real life fairy tails?
0March 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm #153490
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
By the time this story started to really take shape I was past those stories. Telling them this story in a few years will do them good.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 6:16 pm #153491Thanks, good advice just like the other advice you give on here.
0March 16, 2007 at 6:41 pm #153500Sounds like a good life. Throw in an arguement or two on
Measurement Sytems and you have the complete package.We were having fun – we were learning.0March 16, 2007 at 7:33 pm #153499
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
Genetics and to much time at beer and wine establishment with a pond for the kids, as a child listening to an eclectic group discuss quality, Deming, Juran and various others.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 8:18 pm #153506
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
You know of where I speak. That was a night I won’t forget. Almost two decades later I figured out what it was about.
We just liked feeding the fish.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 8:35 pm #153510
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
Small world.
I look forward to the next installment.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 9:44 pm #153516
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Peter,
Thank you so much for your insight. I have spent years pondering the meaning of “picking fly sXXt out of pepper” and now I understand it completely.
Lebowski0March 16, 2007 at 10:01 pm #153514It definitely sounds like a fairy story.
Shainin’s pre-control approach has been shown to increase variation.
Can we expect similar fairy stories about Mikel Harry perhaps ?0March 18, 2007 at 12:37 am #153530Peter,
Please tell me your actual level of knowledge of pre-control. I would like to address your comment and need to know if you really understand the limitations of pre-control or are you just repeating what you have been told.0March 20, 2007 at 3:46 pm #153628Peter,
To your comment that Shainins Pre-Control method has been shown to increase variation, I will assume that you have no experience with the method either through actual usage or doing simple simulations to really understand what comments like yours really mean. I will show you several scenarios and then lets see what Shainins method does or does not contribute. Okay?
Scenario #1 – We have a process that is in control with a Cp of 1. The spec is 100 +/- 3. The process is centered at 101.5 after doing what the SPC texts suggests of 20 30 samples, compute centerline and control limits.
SPC (x-bar, r) – The control limits (set following Wheelers suggestions) are 101.5 +/- 1.35. Go create 100 five piece samples using rational subgroups and all of the other things that are proper for SPC. What you will see with all 8 of the rules Minitab provides turned on is 0, 1, or 2 out of control points for each sample of 100. I just did it about 20 times.
Pre-control Using Shainins rules for dividing the spec into four pieces, I cant get the process to turn on! Shainin demands five consecutive pieces in the green (evidence that the process is somewhat centered).
Shainin wins.
Scenario # 2 We have a process that is in control with a Cp of 1. The spec is 100 +/- 3. The process is centered at 100 after doing what the SPC texts suggests of 20 30 samples, compute centerline and control limits. After a tool change, the process shifts to a mean of 99.5.
SPC (x-bar, r) – – The control limits (set following Wheelers suggestions) are 100 +/- 1.35. Go create 100 five piece samples using rational subgroups and all of the other things that are proper for SPC that also reflects the shift. What you will see is failure for either 2 of 3 beyond 2 or 4 of 5 beyond 1 on average after about 10 samples.
Pre-control Process turns on okay and fails for two yellows on average at about 20 samples.
SPC wins
Scenario # 3 – We have a process that is in control with a Cp of 2. The spec is 100 +/- 3. The process is centered at 101.5 after doing what the SPC texts suggests of 20 30 samples, compute centerline and control limits.
SPC (x-bar, r) – The control limits (set following Wheelers suggestions) are 101.5 +/- 0.67. Go create 100 five piece samples using rational subgroups and all of the other things that are proper for SPC. What you will see with all 8 of the rules Minitab provides turned on is 0, 1, or 2 out of control points for each sample of 100. I just did it about 20 times.
Pre-control Using Shainins rules for dividing the spec into four pieces, I cant get the process to turn on! Shainin demands five consecutive pieces in the green (evidence that the process is somewhat centered).
Shainin wins.
Scenario # 4 We have a process that is in control with a Cp of 2. The spec is 100 +/- 3. The process is centered at 100 after doing what the SPC texts suggests of 20 30 samples, compute centerline and control limits. After a tool change, the process shifts to a mean of 99.5.
SPC (x-bar, r) – – The control limits (set following Wheelers suggestions) are 100 +/- 1.35. Go create 100 five piece samples using rational subgroups and all of the other things that are proper for SPC that also reflects the shift. What you will see is failure for either 2 of 3 beyond 2 or 4 of 5 beyond 1 on average after about 3 or 4 samples.
Pre-control Process turns on okay and generally does not fail.
SPC wins
The point is that it is not clear cut that SPC is superior for a couple of reasons.
1) SPC is taught to go collect 20 or 30 samples of 4 or 5, compute centerline and control limits . So what happens when we desire to have the process targeted? SPC, the way it is normally taught does not address the issue. X-bar is where x-bar is and as long as the Cpk is minimally acceptable, it does not get addressed. If Taguchi is right, this is wrong.
2) SPC is generally implemented using less than the full complement of test that are looking for a shift or drift in the mean.
3) SPC is generally not reacted to. Out of control points are dismissed by people who think they are doing the right thing for the customer.
Can Pre-control increase variation? Yes, when two conditions exist. The first condition is the Cp > 1 and we use the rules with regard to the specifications.
Are there other rules that can be used? Yes, we can set up the zones based on knowledge of capability. When we do this, SPC is minimally better if you use all the rules for detecting shifts and drifts and respond appropriately. Note that it is minimally better, so the real question is which would be used properly? Within SPC, EWMA is minimally better than x-bar, r and again the question would be one of the implementation.
Bottom line is that if a facility that does not do SPC completely, including proper reaction to all out of control conditions; I can come into that facility and smoke you using Pre-control with the rules modified for capability instead of specs.
BTW – who do you think the story is about?0March 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm #153631Gary:
We need Shainin’s Pre-control like a hole in the head!
Give me a good reason why I should dump Minitab or abandon my spreadsheet add-ins in favour of a B vs C test, or Yate’s algorithm?
On the positive side – I’ve really found build and breakdown tests useful in the past, along with randomized sequence.
Ray
0March 20, 2007 at 4:28 pm #153632I agree on B vs C. I also agree on Component and Variable Search.
Tell me how you set up and maintain your control charts.0April 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm #154944Lebowski,
You need to explain the inside joke buried in my story if you want more.0April 18, 2007 at 6:43 pm #154947Great celebrations came with this renewed success. The greatest of all was an award in the memory of a rodeo cowboy who was also a secretary interested in commerce and quality. This company won the award at its inception thanks to insight of a former child actor who started his career in a movie about a once great man trying to be great again. He now acted as the head of Quality at a distant outpost of the once great company. Must have thought he was back in the movie, None the less, the award was won. Great celebrations ensued and all sorts of jokers took credit, included the Red X PhD from the great university in the desert. Seven years in and life is good. The president relinquished his position to the head of his least profitable business (his computer business was losing money for those who want to split hairs), and the enterprise was declared world class. For those of you who do not know the true meaning of world class, it means we are within five years of falling flat on our rear ends. For evidence of this, look at this once great company (again), Xerox, Compaq, and many others. With the knowledge of being world class, learning ceased. Those who had fun for the previous seven years, well lets just say they did not enjoy the new politics that looked suspiciously like the politics of ten years before. The change agents left in droves. The self promoters left as well.
The change agents wandered aimlessly for the next three and one half years, falling for such nonsense as the Compaq culture (translated into 1991 lingo means align yourself with the guy from the inventor of the transistor that was also a failed company by now). Some self promoters went to a great, but obscenely inefficient, European equipment maker following a man who only existed at 50,000 or more. All succeeded, but none had fun or left anything sustainable..0April 19, 2007 at 12:24 am #154955
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
I have been told there are two possible inside jokes minimum. The first is the great physicist who proclaimed he was smarter than everbody which is supposed to true, who offered help and nobody accepted. It is true with exception of Seguin who got the Pilsbury Doughboy and called the great physicist weekly to have him removed.
The second is a current Six Sigma guru who put on slide shows using two overheads which he operated by himself but only after he had explained he was a Phd and was smart, unfortunately not like the physicist, but rather than be at a loss for words during his presentations, would make up words and just move on. I am told that the amazing part is that everybody knew it was wrong but nobody said anything.
Now do we get part two?
Lebowski0April 19, 2007 at 12:32 am #154956
LebowskiParticipant@LebowskiInclude @Lebowski in your post and this person will
be notified via email.Gary,
That one will take some thinking.
Lebowski0April 19, 2007 at 1:19 pm #154974“Work continued as the once great company internalized the problem
solving. They hired PhD students from the great university in the
desert and put signs on the entrances of their facilities that they were
protected by this problem solving method.”Don’t you find it odd that signs were placed saying they were rotected
by this problem solving method?0April 19, 2007 at 5:51 pm #154994Where’s the happily ever after part? This is too sad to be a fairy tale.
0 -
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.