iSixSigma

Better than Six Sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Better than Six Sigma

Viewing 82 posts - 1 through 82 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38535

    Mariana
    Participant

    When would you choose to set control limits that are better than six sigma?

    0
    #115295

    Dayton
    Member

    When and only if you had to – had to based on an effective cost benefit analysis.   Nothing is free.  What would make you think that you’d need to exceed 6 sigma?   What are your thoughts regarding when you’d need to exceed 6 sigma quality in a process?    Are you with NASA or FAA?   And what would you suppose are best-case aeronautical sigma levels?
    Vinny

    0
    #115297

    Kumar
    Participant

    when your process is capable.of course.
    If the question is should the process be improved beyond six sigma, the answer can be given by the customer. I have seen many processes far better than ss, and the customer positively prefers such vendors over others.
    Developing more capable processes without major cost increase is what is to be attempted. 

    0
    #115299

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    For most industrial actions, Six Sigma may be sufficient. I see better than Six Sigma level reject rate for very sensitive (complex systems) and critical applications (safety and very expensive) such as Space Shuttle.
    In industrial applications, before we improve a typical process beyond six sigma, we may look at other opportunities.
    Praveen

    0
    #115301

    Mikel
    Member

    Praveen,
    As always, you are the one who is out in space. Tell us about the clients of yours that are better than six sigma.
    Whats that? You’ve never actually seen someone better than six sigma? What a surprize.
    Space Shuttle processes are in the neighborhood of three sigma. Learn what you are talking about.
    How is that conjuring of sigma levels going for you. People think it’s BS? What a surprize.
    Love and kisses,
    Stan

    0
    #115303

    Mikel
    Member

    What BS. You don’t know what you are talking about.

    0
    #115305

    Mikel
    Member

    What does it mean to have control limits better than six sigma?

    0
    #115306

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Stan:
    Valentine is already over for love and kisses.
    As to better than six sigma, some characteristics do have capability Cp and Cpk better than 2, it means they are better than six sigma in terms of probabilities. Does that make sense.
    Praveen

    0
    #115308

    Mikel
    Member

    Praveen,
    You are a pretender. You don’t have a clue. Go sell your nonsense elsewhere.

    0
    #115311

    Praveen,
    Have you considered the use of ‘redundancy’ in complex systems? How would redudancy affect a calculation of Process Sigma?
    Regards,
    Andy
     

    0
    #115312

    Peppe
    Participant

    I know it is used often, in some fields, when you want to take care of degradation over many years, so you set your limits having done a simulation of that.
    Rgs, Peppe

    0
    #115316

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    What he mean was widen up spec cheap solution as practice by 3-sigma company to achieve 6-sigma goal.

    0
    #115346

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen,
    It has been a while since you tried your “close your eyes and feel the force” Yoda non-math approach to Six Sigma. If I remember correctly you got spanked pretty good and sent home last time. Must be wearing off.
    There is a mix of experience levels on this forum but most people here are familiar enough with Six Sigma to recognize your smoke and mirrors magic act.
    I agree with Stan. Sell that stuff somewhere else. 

    0
    #115378

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    I thought your ex-colleage from Motorola shall be an expert in SS. 

    0
    #115381

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Let’s follow that trin of thought (or lack of) – wood floats therefore everything that floats is wood. You continue to be an amazingly well read idiot.

    0
    #115382

    indresh
    Participant

    i think with discussions going personal the question initiated got somehow lost
    i too am new and would really like to have a simple explanation from all you experts
    we set +-3 sigma as control limits, what if we set it at 6 sigma levels ?
    is it just to have more breathing space than before….i presume yes, then why not anything less than 3 ?

    0
    #115388

    Chris Butterworth
    Participant

    Hi Mariana,
    I think you must have meant specification limits, not control limits. Control limits are almost always three-sigma limits. That way you can see when a process exhibits behaviour worth investigating. A point outside the three-sigma limits in improbable and therefore a likely source of variation that would be worth learning about and removing. Less than three-sigma and you would be chasing noise. More than three sigma and you’d miss a lot of action.
    But six sigma specification limits makes sense. I would choose better-than-six-sigma limits if my current estimate of the process variation (sigma) was low due to a small sample. If I expect a lot more variation to show up in a process then I would want to test my product at these extreme levels and if successful, make my spec limits these extreme levels.  
    I hope that helps
    Chris
     

    0
    #115390

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    Only true idiots will using a declining company to boost up their reputation openly. 15 years is a long history in the business world, but a bunch of idiots are ignorant about this simple fact.

    0
    #115395

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Lets take a look at your reputation. Your self chosen name reflects a lack of self esteem. Your post virtually never reflect what you have done but what you have read. The post about what you did you admitted you couldn’t get it done.
    Now we superimpose this impressive record with the idiotic assumption that everyone at Motorola knew each other. Stick to reading – comprehension and extrapolation to the real world seem to be beyond your capabilities.

    0
    #115404

    Ron
    Member

    Control limits are determined by the voice ofthe process you do not “SET” control limits. Don’t confuse control limits with specification limits.
    Since most data is taken in sample format and samples are usually quite small compared to the population you never calcualte a sigma value based on sample data (unless sample sizes are quite huge)
    So to answer your question you do not set control limits. The term Six Sigma is used to represent a goal of a near perfect process. So as a goal this is admirable but does your business require perfection? At some point in your six sigma journey you need to assess a what point does the cost of perfection exceed the needs of the business.

    0
    #115408

    Dayton
    Member

    Now that was an interesting statement.   And before we have people thinking that there is no intelligence or human activity applied in setting control limits, that control limits, much like flowing water, set themselves according to some invisible and inviolate force of nature – let’s explore it a bit.
     
    For example, in clinical applications if you are using an exponentially weighted moving averages derived control chart you are using not just the immediate values under test but also applying the results of previous tests to determine process control using a system of multiplication of the current test value by a weighting factor and adding the current imputed value to the sum of all previously derived values.   But you already know that, so let’s move on.
     
    Clinical chemistry has used this exponential smoothing process for years and it’s setup by determining the run length, determining the chart’s appropriate shift sensitivity, determining the factor for the control limits for the applied shift sensitivity, and then performing the testing for best case process performance.  And you’ve got an EWMA chart – not to be confused with a Shewart chart in which control limits are also set using somewhat arbitrarily selected standard deviation levels using applied gaussian distribution assessed against single point results.
     
    In using an EWMA chart you determine your average run length and the best-case shift detection point in standard deviation to determine the weighting factor – from this you can use the Westgard algorithm in determining your upper and lower control points.
     
    In using either the Shewart or EWMA method for control limit establishment – while you are in either case using process capability studies to determine your normative run states, you are analyzing your process, structuring the testing, establishing your acceptable standard deviation points, and in doing so setting your control limits.  
     
    Possibly you are thinking that this is really semantics in that you were really saying the as found process capability is what it is (barring intervention and changing the process and its capability) determining and setting the control limits – but for the reasons previously stated, I think that’s wrong.  You performed a series of stepwise (pardon the use of that word Phil – it just seems appropriate) activities that set your control limits – control limits are set and you did it.
     
    Just my well paragraphed opinion.   I’ll work on the rambling and scattered thought process, but I have not been successful to date in achieving purely linear thought.
     
    Vinny

    0
    #115411

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    Many old dogs still dreaming good old days. A pot laughing at black kettle is the impression I have after reading your unfriendly comment against Praveen.
    Of course don’t wasting time to read books with nonsense theories from many ex-Motorolan. 

    0
    #115416

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Stan:
    I am relatively new to the discussion boards here at iSixSigma this week, but not new to discussion boards around the Web and I find your comments not only counterproductive, but disrespectful to Praveen. I am not against heated debate or contrary views and am not for politically correct speech either, but am for respectful and courteous discourse that is broad minded enough to see other points of view where debate is on the varying point of views and the substance of their views and not on personal attacks which your message focuses on. It is finally nice to be able to posts to this forum and I hope Stan takes this message in the spirit that it is given.
    Respectfully yours,
    John

    0
    #115433

    Dog Sxxt
    Participant

    There is one self-promoting six sigma consultant here always goes for name calling like idiot, etc personal attacks when he cannot attack your points.

    0
    #115441

    Mikel
    Member

    John,
    Welcome to the forum – if you can contribute to the discussion, please do. Otherwise, talk about something that makes a difference.
    Discussions that are idiotic need to be called idiotic and thats all I have done. Check Praveen’s conjuring sigma level discussions. Pretty stupid and not doing anything except distracting already confused people.
    If you want to discuss six sigma or anything relavent please feel free to engage in a discussin with me. If you think you are in a position to judge me, go read the bible.

    0
    #115442

    Mikel
    Member

    Read Shewhart – he answered the question over fifty years ago. Baisc truths and physics haven’t changed.

    0
    #115445

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    I appreciate you welcoming me to the Six Sigma discussion board and am glad you took my comments in the spirit that they were given and not as a personal judication.
    As far as Praveen’s comments regarding better than Six Sigma, there are examples of this in the literature. For example, Keller (2001) points out example error rates in the airline industry, specifically airline fatalities, have a Sigma level of approximately 6.5 (as cited in Keller, 2005, Chapter 1 Deployment Strategy section, Figure 1.2, p. 5).
    Over the course of these last few weeks I have pulled some 923 journal articles on Six Sigma from ProQuest and have gone through 114 of them so far and will post interesting items from these peer-reviewed articles as time permits and they become relevant to the discussions at hand.
    Again, thanks for the welcome and I am looking forward to many stimulating and insightful Six Sigma discussions.
    Reference
     
    Keller, P. (2005) Six Sigma DeMystified. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    0
    #115449

    Control Freak
    Participant

    Mariana:
    Just to make sure, control limits are not the same as specification limits.Should control limits be set at greater than 6 sigma?Historically, control limits on control charts were set at 3 standard deviations as a convenient balance between detecting non-random measurements and the minimizing the number of false alarms. This balance point has been chosen (historically) as about 1 chance in 400. When you are alerted, there is roughly 1 chance in 400 that you are reacting to pure random variation. Placing these limits at a higher value would make the control chart less sensitive to real variation. There is at least 40 years of experience in statistical process control (SPC) to recommend these settings. In addition, there are lots of other tests you can apply to control charts to detect shifts, drifting baselines, etc. They have been added over the years. Look up the “Western Electric Rules” and “SPC” for more details.Should specification limits be placed at higher than 6 sigma?This seems like a cart before the horse question about process capability. The process should be1) Determine the specification limits from the customer2) Determine the variation in your process3) Calculate the ‘sigma’ value of the process.The ‘sigma’ level is the result of the calculation of process capability, not set beforehand. I have seen processes with a process capability of greater than 6 sigma. As a piece of a DFSS project we were designing a remote monitoring protocol for a turbine We had to check if the sampling interval was sufficient to detect when the turbine was beginning to perform out of its operating specifications. The 95% confidence interval of the process capability was 10.5-13.7 sigma – the sampling plan was sufficient.Mistake proofing has zero defects, infinite ‘sigma’, as its goal and is a great tool to include as part of an Improve solution.Customers will change their specification limits as the marketplace and competition change, so an absolute ‘sigma’ level is a bit artificial. If a project has a significant impact on the customer your data measurement was relevant and accurate, then your ‘sigma’ level should have increased. This does not mean that this will be the case forever, customer feedback is constantly being used to identify problems in the business.Should it be a corporate goal be for a company to be better than a 6 ‘sigma’ company?There are so many processes within a business that such a goal would distract from a focused program directed at solving problems that have an impact on the customer. 3 ‘sigma’ for luggage handing and 7 ‘sigma’ for not crashing the plane are good enough for my traveling, and I have given up on even 1 sigma on wine selection.Is there a reason to look for something beyond the existing Six Sigma tools and methodology?Yes, there is always going to be place for an active, effective and growing Six Sigma culture in business.Hope this helps.

    0
    #115461

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    John,
    I may be interpreting your post incorrectly. It seems that because you have found a reference that makes it a fact. I am sure after you spend some time on the forum you will see that the discipline is constantly being bastardized. There are a lot of the current gurus that did nothing more than publish to become accepted by the public as a guru. In fact they have created a second tier industry – reworking Six Sigma deployments. The references are nice but they do not make you correct. Understanding the discipline and having a track record of being able to apply it will get you a lot further.
    Good luck.

    0
    #115465

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Mike Carnell:
     
    Interesting comments and I agree with you that having a reference does not make something true, but science without peer-reviewed articles as well as the law itself without case law and precedence would come to a standstill without public discourse through the written word.
     
    I am a big proponent of supporting what works and gets the job done, but also see the utility of data-driven methodical research, discussion, and so forth which after all is the foundation for Six Sigma through using references from a review of the literature so as to not reinvent the wheel as well as seeing if a particular problem has been solved heretofore or is being worked and have a tendency to view published literature with a critical eye, but less so than opinion-based only argument since at least the former has gone through a vetting process, albeit stifling and missive at times, but at the very least is an organized reality-based attempt to get at the truth.
     
    By the way, for your information, I am including one section from some notes (rough draft to be sure) I put together on Six Sigma implementation from the perspective of a literature review which I am in the process of adding practical case study too as time permits, but hope it will spawn some additional debate beyond the one I have been having so far on a far more important topic on what are the primary drivers for achieving Six Sigma success and have included the references (excluding Tables and Figures) in case anyone would like to further pursue this topic from a literature standpoint in addition to real-world application which most would agree is fundamental as it pays the bills, so to speak.
     
    Adopting Six Sigma Success Probability
     
    The probability of successfully adopting Six Sigma within an organization (Anonymous, 2002a; Antony & Banuelas, 2002; Byrne, 2003; Coronado & Antony, 2002; Davis, 2003; Sandholm & Sorqvist, 2002; Watson, Faltin, Pearson, & Leitnaker, 2003; Tsiakals, 2004) can be increased by addressing a number of important parameters according to Brewer and Bagranoff (2004).
     
    1.      Organizational culture needs to be immersed from the top-down with Six Sigma dogma making it a priority (see Figure 2).
    2.      Training (see Figure 3) in learning the tools through written exams and practical project application are fundamental (see Figure 4) (Carnell, 2003; Moore, Hoerl & Snee, 2004).
    3.      Choose projects carefully (Bertels & Patterson, 2003; Fundin & Cronemyr, 2003) incorporating attributes that are transactional- and data-intensive (Klenz, 2001; Roth II, 2003) for easier Six Sigma application especially projects affecting job satisfaction of the Six Sigma team as well as projects that will impact significantly on an organization’s strategic objectives to increase buy-in of the organization at large (see Figure 2).
    4.      Six Sigma projects must have measurable and accountable benefits that are auditable in relation to a documentable baseline with project evaluations being linked to employee performance reviews and incentive systems (see Figure 3).
    5.      All decision-making processes should be data-driven (Anonymous, 2004b; Kubiak, 2004; Redman, 2004) without jumping to conclusions especially during the initial stages of define and measure of the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) Six Sigma methodology (see Table 1).
    6.      Limit the scope of Six Sigma projects to a single process instead of a number of interrelated processes to better enable short-term success (see Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 5).
    7.      Project tools should fit the project requirements at hand and not some predefined template, such as in the example of not incorporating statistical process control (SPC) charts in some project processes if the process is not a data-driven activity or if it does not make good sense to do so within that process (see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6).
    8.      Cost should not be the only focus such as in the example of financial and accounting applications where the goal might be to minimize time spent on requirements for reporting in order to maximize time spent doing analysis (see Figure 5, Figure 6).
     
    References
     

    Anonymous. (2002a). 12 critical success factors for Six Sigma effectiveness. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(3), 68. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Anonymous. (2004b, May). Talking points for data discussion. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3(3), 21. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Antony, J., & Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma program. Measuring Business Excellence,  6(4), 20. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Bertels, T., & Patterson, G. (2003, November). Selecting Six Sigma projects that matter. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3 (1), 13. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Brewer, P. C., & Bagranoff, N. A. (2004, January-February). Near zero-defect accounting with Six Sigma. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 15(2), 67. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Byrne, G. (2003, Spring). Ensuring optimal success with Six Sigma implementations. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 22 (2), 43. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Carnell, M. (2003, May). The project pipeline. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 2(3), 28. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Coronado, R. B., & Antony, J. (2002). Critical success factors for the successful implementation of six sigma projects in organisations. The TQM Magazine , 14(2), 92. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Davis, A. G. (2003, November). Six Sigma for small companies. Quality, 42(11), 20. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Fundin, A. P., & Cronemyr, P. (2003, November). Use customer feedback to choose Six Sigma projects. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3(1), 17. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Klenz, B. (2001, January). Processing ‘one version of truth’ improves user confidence. Control Engineering, 48(1), 47. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Kubiak, T. M. (2004, May). The implementer’s dilemma. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3(3), 8. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Moore, D. S., Hoerl, R. W., & Snee, R. D. (2004, November). How to teach introductory statistics. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 4(1), 47. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Redman, T. C. (2004, May). Confronting data demons. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3(3), 13. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Roth II, G. (2003, November). How to perform a machine capability study. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 3(1), 22. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Sandholm, L., & Sorqvist, L. (2002, November). 12 requirements for Six Sigma success. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 2(1), 17. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.
    Watson, G. H., Faltin, F. W., Pearson, T., & Leitnaker, M. G. (2003, May). Your opinion: What does it take to be a master black belt? ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, 2(3), 34. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from ProQuest database.

    0
    #115469

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    John,
    Like I said you should be able to make your own argument. Even in a court of law an attorney “makes their case.” No attorney just walks up and says that was deceided in case XXX. Let me give you an example you have in your references a person who while going through certification refused to do a project. It would be interesting to see that persons credentials at this point.
    Good luck.

    0
    #115472

    Markert
    Participant

    Refused to do a project????
    I am aghast! It never occured to me that Anonymous could be such a troublemaker during certification, too. And shame on him/her for posting so frequently here at isixsigma!!

    0
    #115473

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Phil,
    Not to shocking actually. It has happened more than once and we don’t certify them regardless of how much of a tantrum they throw or how much pressure management applies. We had a similar situation on Wave II at Allied. Management wanted him certified and we wouldn’t without a project. At the end of the day he did a project that was absolutely solid, in a process that was considered black magic. Rather than push a bad position he just executed so perfectly we had no choice. The good part is he now consults.
    The real issue if just having published is supposed to make it credible which it doesn’t, then the foundation is of the next publication is just as questionable. It isn’t the the fact that it was published as much as who published it.
    It has been a while but I believe it was Stan (Motorola days) who made the comment – if you have to go to refences in a discussion you have already lost.
    To quote Wilfred Brimley in “Absence of Malice” – “Make your case Counsellor.” 
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #115476

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Not sure why a few on this board particularly on this thread are so against higher learning and using literature-based research which is tantamount to closing your eyes to a whole body of knowledge. Also, not sure how such thinking can survive in industry where such a knowledge base is used for continuous learning as everyone I have worked with colleague and customer alike always conducts literature-base or industry-based research before undertaken a study. Just consult the case studies on isixsigma and other similar sites or for that matter the training materials themselves. Just glad I am working with more enlightened people willing to go out of themselves and their own little world and experience level to look at and analyze the ideas of others and am beginning to wonder how much they really know as they offer little of merit and technical value beyond the sophomoric. This is now the fourth message I have posted in this thread and yet some responses heretofore have offered little in terms of substance with little value-added which is a shame if not a waste of time and I for one will not waste the few minutes I have each day to respond to such drivel and trivial inane comments and will follow a different thread here on out unless there is some value added to this one. Good day and good luck.

    0
    #115477

    Dayton
    Member

    John,
     
    It’s good that you work in an enlightened environment.  And it’s good that you value learning.   And it’s good that you are seeking additional Six Sigma knowledge.  Many who participate in this forum also value learning and applied learning and have achieved a great deal in doing so.   
     
    Odd though, that you, who are enlightened through learning, have, so far, turned your back on and tried to alienate many of those in the forum who could continue you on your path.  By the way, do you like Zen parables?   I do.
    Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
    Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
    The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
    “Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
    Vinny

    0
    #115478

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Vinny,
    Your point is well taken and I will endeavor to hold my restraint even when others do not, but I do not feel I have alienated any on this board who was serious in their discussion and brought to bare arguments beyond criticism of others with no justification who are here to learn like most of us and am wondering if hyperbole is the name of the game for some in this thread.
    Respectfully yours,
    John

    0
    #115479

    Dayton
    Member

    John,
     
    I came into the forum some time back as a BB who’d had stints in both academia and the corporate worlds.   My attitude was that with an engineering degree, MBA and doctorate all from tier one schools along with applied knowledge and work in research, quality and operations at significant enough organizational levels to be a blend of strategic and tactical combined with my Six Sigma training and project work – I pretty well knew all there was to know and did a lot more typing than reading in my first few months, well I met with some stiff arming from some of the more experienced Six Sigma practitioners on the forum – but you know what?   I began to read more than I typed, thought about what I read and began to try to productively engage some of the folks that I initially thought were noncontributory pricks and, over time, began to realize that they were actually very experienced and highly contributory pricks and that if I gave it/them a chance, I could learn something – which itself was a bit of an epiphany.  
     
    So, point is, if you’re a high achieving type-A personality, relentless and assertive to the point of aggressive and that’s what, in addition to your smarts and abilities, brought you to the party that’s also what will help keep you in the game as a successful change agent – but when you blast out there don’t be thinned skinned when you roll out something that could mislead those that need to be led and get backhanded for it.  It’s not just they way it is, when you think about it objectively, it’s also the way it should be in an anonymous forum in which everyone in the world can and will step to the plate with an opinion.  The best tends to rise to the top.   I know it’s hard to believe but I like to argue and don’t resist trying to occasionally play rough and/or demonstrate superiority of knowledge and intellect – but when I do so, I expect to get whacked.  It happens, move on.
     
    Like Mike and Stan (two of the most experienced Six Sigma folks around and whose thoughts you should read and think about) said, welcome to the forum.  Engage, take your lumps and learn something along the way.   Besides, you can’t be the forum whiner – the position’s taken by Mikey, who’s now gone but not forgotten.  So, lighten up on the complaining, roll up your sleeves and jump into the fray.
     
    Also, as an fyi – I like your propensity to use unnecessarily big words, complex compound run-on sentences and complete absence of paragraphing.  Work on getting a bit more convoluted and rambling in your logic and we can be pen pals.  
     
    Vinny

    0
    #115481

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Vinny,
    Great points and I will take many of them to heart and glad you like my writing and maybe you can learn something by reading it. I was first in my class for see Spot run…watch Jane run…and so forth. I have also, dealt with some SOB’s with gruff personalities, but like most found many of them lacking when the tire hit the road, so to speak.
    As far as whining, I do not consider what I have done as such unless you think courteous and respectful discourse is whining which was not on my behalf, but on another’s behalf. You see I think everyone has a place at the table and have found some of the best ideas from those working on the line saving companies I have worked for millions of dollars that were not listened to until I joined as a Program Manager and raised their voices.
    Will continue to follow the board, but will try to sit back and listen and hope to see all that you see and disregard any gruffness as just so much machismo and concentrate on the kernels of knowledge instead.
     John

    0
    #115493

    Mikel
    Member

    You said this is your 4th post and have had no responses with substance –
     
    let me remind you of your 1st post in this thread –
    Stan:
    I am relatively new to the discussion boards here at iSixSigma this week, but not new to discussion boards around the Web and I find your comments not only counterproductive, but disrespectful to Praveen. I am not against heated debate or contrary views and am not for politically correct speech either, but am for respectful and courteous discourse that is broad minded enough to see other points of view where debate is on the varying point of views and the substance of their views and not on personal attacks which your message focuses on. It is finally nice to be able to posts to this forum and I hope Stan takes this message in the spirit that it is given.
    Respectfully yours,
    John
     
    Substance? You seem to lack it as well.

    0
    #115532

    Mikel
    Member

    I still think the comment about the references is right. You read and think to form your own opinions.
    Anyone who comes with someone elses opinion is not worth listening to.

    0
    #115533

    Mikel
    Member

    Since my friend John was concerned about substance and no one answereing your question, I will answer your original question –
    Short answer – never.
    You may be confused by the term control limits and if you are, go understand and come back with a better question.
     

    0
    #115537

    FTSBB
    Participant

    Q: “When would you choose to set control limits that are better than six sigma?”
    A. Whenever you want to.  Doesn’t matter to me.  Just as long as you know what you’re looking at.  If this smart-alleck response doesn’t make sense, maybe you don’t need to mess with changing the limits and messing with 100+ years of statistical research…
    In the meantime, pick up a copy of anything by Donald J. Wheeler, specifically Understanding Statistical Process Control.  Read & learn…
    Anyone want to bash Wheeler as a source???

    0
    #115579

    Mikel
    Member

    Yea, I want to bash Wheeler as a source. You think he walks on water or has something new to contribute?

    0
    #115616

    Gabriel
    Participant

    John,
    First of all, I want to call your and other’s attention to the fact that the question was about six sigma control limits, and not six sigma performance. You can have a better or worse than six sigma process/product irrespectively of which control limits you use, and you can use 1 sigma or 10 sigma control limits and still have any sigma score.
    Second, the following is not in line with the original question (six sigma contrlo limits) but is in line with the already deviated thread: As long as I know the sigma score is based on DPMO or PPM (defects or defectives). The fact that you took off in a plane and survived the crash does not make that a successful (defects free) flight, does it? (not to mention delays, bad service, lost baggage, returning to the departure airport or landing somwhere other than the intended destination). I manufacture clutch bearings and none of my clutch bearingss has ever killed a user so far. Does that alone make my product six sigma class?
    Let me tell you a real life case: Last year an airplane lost one of the weels of the left main landing gear during the take off run. The weel ran and bounced over the runway, went through the airport fence, destroyed a bus stop, bounced several times on an avenue full of cars impacting some of them, and came to rest in a gass station. By pure lick, noone was injuried. The pilot only noticied that he lost a weel when the control tower told him. Then the pilot departed from the original route, flew in circles to burn fuel until the plane got below tha maximum landing wight, and landed in another airport. During the landing roll the remaining weel in the left landing gear flew off. The airplane continued the landing roll on the brake discs, which desintegrated progressively. The derbies of the brake disc destroyed the right engine and the right flap and also made several holes in the right wing, many of them severing the right fuel tank that started draining fuel through them. The right landing gear got fire, with the fuel draining just over it. Everybody abandoned the plane successfully and the fire was quickly controlled. In summary: A destroyed airport fence, some damaged cars, a destroyed right landing gear, right engine and right flap, a damaged right wing and right fuel tank (sounds like a lot of $$$), 100 passangers that could not get where they wanted to go (and payed for), not to tell about the horrible time they had and the potential risk not realized of severe injuries and death, bot on board and on ground. Several defects and mistakes were found to be the causes of this potentially fatal flight. But this flight sums in favor of a 6 sigma + score according to your numbers, and not against. And I am happy for the fact that by far most of the ariplane accident / incidents are like this one – they do not count as a defect to your statistic because there are no fatalities.
    Finally, since you are new to iSixSigma, I think that this info about Stan will help you:
    1- Stan is what he/she/they is/are. Several trials from many people trying to convince him/her/they to behave in a kind way systemathically failed. And all trials to make iSixSigma guys ban Stan because of his/her/their bahaviour failed to. So do not waste your time with this issue:
    2- How ever, you must know the two main features of Stan to appreciate his/her/their true value to this forum: Stan is almost allways rude, and Stan is almost allways right. So the key is to forget the packaging and get the contenet of his/her/their messages.

    0
    #115622

    Mikel
    Member

    John,
    In your massive literature search, you may want to learn to distinguish between a six sigma result and a six sigma process. Or maybe just get advice from Praveen – he does not know the difference.

    0
    #115629

    Tronan
    Member

    Stan,
    You know those little books you get, things like thoughts for the day…
    You should collect up all your short remark postings and put them in a little book.
    I’d buy it for sure!
    T.

    0
    #115634

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Thanks for the post, Gabriel, and I understand your perspective regarding DPMO for airline fatalities leading to an approximately 6.5 Sigma level. But again this was just meant to be an illustration of one process error rate operating at this Sigma level which does not detract from all the others operating from 3 to 4 Sigma.
     
    As far as behavior unbecoming, I do not have a problem with that per se, just think it is counterproductive and creates an atmosphere where only the strongest or loudest may want to participate much like a survival of the fittest attitude. I grant you such thinking comes into play in business and the real world, but does not always produce the best results especially when one is trying to promote and foster an environment for the free exchange of ideas.
     
    On a positive note, such a no hold’s bar and honest form of communication toughens up the forum and will have the benefit of shutting down discussions offering little value which I hope does not also come at the expense of value-added discussions.

    0
    #115635

    Mikel
    Member

    John,
    Trust me, Praveen’s is not value added. Just take a few obvious points for reference. Parveen shows up in 2002 and claims to be one of Bill Smith’s collaborators. Where was he in the previous decade. He then self promotes some ridiculous way of conjuring a sigma level without actually measuring anything. More recently he shows up claiming to have taught PDCA for a few decades and now wonders if there is a flaw in it (there is a flaw BTW – it’s the idiots that have been teaching it for a few decades and now wonder if there is something wrong with it). All this tells me is Praveen has now again writen something that he is going to promote.
    Let’s hope that yours is value added.

    0
    #115636

    Mikel
    Member

    BYW – Gabriels post are always good and Gabriel is also always a gentleman.

    0
    #115637

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Stan:
    Thanks for your recommendations for John to contact me. Please feel free to give my contact http://www.qtcom.com. I would be more than happy to talk to John, Joe, or Jane, or even you.
    I like isixsigma as I get good feedback to my questions and issues. More importantly, I do take care of my Attendion Deficit Syndrome!
    Thanks for your constructive comments on iSixSigma.com
    Regards,
    Praveen
     

    0
    #115638

    Mikel
    Member

    So what are you promoting with you questions on PDCA?
    As a point of reference, it seems to be working well for a few Japanese companies. Just a historical note – some call PDCA the Deming cycle – that is not correct.

    0
    #115640

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Stan:
    You are welcome to visit the link. Here is an article about PDCA and PPPP
    http://qualitydigest.com/QDarticles/FMPro?-db=iq%5feditorial.fp5&-lay=article%20data%20form&editorial%20type=ISSColumn&release=yes&-format=QDarticle_text.html&articleID=5866&-script=cntaccesstype&-Find
    I hate to write some other magazine’s article. But, I do cite iSixSigma at other places too!
    Welcome your comments!

    0
    #115646

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Great point Stan, but this depends on how you define the process does it not which can be defined as a series of process steps or set of common tasks among other definitions (see iSixSigma Quality Dictionary). Airline fatalities at a 6.5 Six Sigma level is a result, but if all the other process steps such as baggage handling, ticket reservation, and others operating at much lower Sigma levels were included then the process Sigma level would be lower for sure, but few would argue the fatality result is the critical process step in the process.

    0
    #115648

    Mikel
    Member

    You should be banned for self promotion. Everytime you show up here it is to sell some nonsense.
    By the way, you are incorrect with your reference to a Shewhart cycle. I have a copy of everything both Deming and Shewhart ever published. Please cite your reference. Sloppy, sloppy work.

    0
    #115652

    Mikel
    Member

    Fatalities (or hopefully lack of) is an outcome, not a process. It is one of those C’s in SIPOC.

    0
    #115674

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    John,
    How have you tied airline fatalities to baggage handling or reservations?

    0
    #115675

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey, careful messing with John. He has probably read 1,000 papers about Six Sigma by now.
    I am concerned that you’d be easy on him since he cited you as a reference on an earlier posting.
    Seen the wisdom from our old frien Praveen? – promoting his better than PDCA PPPP process and telling us about those six sigma aerospace processes that he knows so well.

    0
    #115682

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    I only spent about a year with the GE Aircraft Engine people and learned to have a lot of respect for them. They accept the job of desining and building products that enable a lot of business and at the same time a simple error can cause hundreds of people to lose their lives. There are easier ways to earn a living.
    When was the last time anyone got off some flight and hugged the baggage handler for getting them there safely.
    Praveen is a hopless case doing those obsequious postings so that people will mistake a lack of a defensible position for professionalism. It is more of that “Hey look at what a deep thinker I am.” It is a 21st century Faust.
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #115687

    GE Rules
    Participant

    After spending a bunch of time with the GEAE people, I flew home seated right in the plane of the compressor rotor of the inboard engines.The Germans say that it is best that you don’t know how they really make sausages…. but, I still fly and eat sausages.

    0
    #115690

    zZero found
    Member

    My scepticism (which is inborn) on this topic results from the clumsy intro at our Corp. Such headlines in the the corporate rag are the equivalent of ” L’il Johnny found that if he opened the garage door before he backed out the family transport much $$ was saved, Thanks 6sigma.” No explanation followed how this happened or why this was better/different than the last best new thing that was touted for QC. After many years of watching these inaugurations, one begins to chuckle……..

    0
    #115692

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    zZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,
    I think you meant inbred not inborn.
    Maybe if you have had so many failures where others have had success you need to look in the mirror rather than at the initiative. People with that jaded attitude are dime a dozen and while you are chuckling on the outside you are scared to death on the inside that if something changes you won’t be able to keep up.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #115694

    Gabriel
    Participant

    A failure in one of the following processes fails:
    Aircraft design
    Aircraft manufacturing
    Aircraft maintenance
    Aircraft operations
    Baggage handling and control
    Passagers security checks
    A given failure in any of these processes can lead to fatalities or to nothing, and the difference is outside the process and uncontrolable.
    Examples:
    Because of fuel contamination, al engines quit running. Case A: The pilot manage to land the airplane in a nearby airport. Case B: The pilot is flying in the middle of the ocean and there is no nearby airport where to land. Case B1: It was a nice day, the sea was calm, the pilot performs a successful splashdown. Case B2: It is the night of a stormy day. During the splashdown a wing tip hits a wave and breaks. Case B2a: Everybody manages to abandon the aircraft before it sinks. Case b2b: When the wing breaks fuel is released and the airplane explodes killing everybody.
    Because attemping to abort the take-off beyond V1, the aircraft departs the runway end. Case A: The aircraft stop on the grass without any injuries or aircraft damage. Case B: One landing gear separates from the aircraft, hits the wing and breaks the fuel tank, the aircraft explodes, the aicraft is completely destroyed and everybody onboard is killed. Case C: The runway was much longer than required for the take off and the airplane stops uneventfully on the runway.
    Due to an operator failure in the scanner, a bag containing forbiden material is admited and loaded on board. Case A: The forbiden material is gasoline, but nothing happens. Case B: The forbiden material is gasoline and the aicraft catchs fire douring flight. Case C: The forbiden material is C4+bateries+detonator. Imagine the rest. Case D: The forbiden material is cocaine. Case D1: The cocaine is detected by the customs at destination. Case D2: The cocaine is sold in New York. Nobody is killed on the airplane but several young boys and girls become adict, some of them die because of that, others become criminals and kill people…
    My point: The fuel was contaminated, the pilot attempted to abort the take off beyond V1, a baggage with forbiden material is accepted: they are all CRITICAL DEFECTS, never mind if by chance the worst potential effect becomes reality or not. Even if you take safety as the only critical-to-quality characteristic of a flight (something I question), it is stupid to say a flight was successfull when a critical deffect happens and everybody walks from that with less than fatal injuries just by chance.

    0
    #115696

    zZero
    Member

    Dear zealot, I think you missed my point. People this jaded (we start out sceptical, this is a good thing)  are created not born. Perhaps the purveyors of this system should control the unveiling process as well as the implementation. I have nothing vs. 6 sigma. I believe in logic, the scientific method, and the occassional witty sentiment. Here’s one,
    “Shudder, in fact, is not quite the word for the feeling. Feeling is not quite the word for the feeling. How’s bathing at knifepoint in the phlegm of the dead? Is that a feeling?”*

    *Home Land
    A Novel
    Sam Lipsyte
    Now there ya go…….

    0
    #115698

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    zZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, You are going to wrap yourself up in terms like logic, the scientific method, and the occasional witty sentiment. There was nothing in your post that was logical, scientific or witty. We sit in rooms with people like you day after day who are living pathetic lives and throw out that jaded nonsense because you gave up years ago. It doesn’t have anything to do with sceptical. It is pure unadulterated fear that someone will discover you have been living a lie for years and you want to see how many other people you can drag down with you.Just because you quit on life don’t screw up the lives of the people around you that still have some self esteem left. Quietly fade away. Nobody will miss you.I’ll give you quote that is more to the point: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former”  Albert Einstein

    0
    #115699

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Stan:
    I can understand the confusion about PDCA and PDSA originators. Here are three references that attribute PDCA to Shewhart, and PDSA to Deming. Have fun.
    http://www.shsu.edu/~mgt_ves/mgt481/Chapter8.doc
    http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite2/toolkit/pdcacycl.htm
    http://www.sixsigmaspc.com/dictionary/PDCA-plan-do-check-act.html
    Thanks for pointing it out.
    Somebody has said, “It is extremely easy to criticize everything, and a little challenging to create something, even if it is wrong!” 

    0
    #115700

    zZero
    Member

    ?
    Seek help.  Your anger is consuming you. Diversify your thinking. You seem to be all wrapped in this stuff. Cheers.
    p.s. I charge for further arguments.

    0
    #115701

    Mikel
    Member

    Funny that none of these references go back to anything that Shewhart wrote. There was an interesting article in Quality Progress about a year after Deming’s death that gave the actual story of PDCA from guys who were Deming’s students in Japan. It would be appropriate to call it the Japanese cycle as that it where it originated. Shewhart never wrote about it or took credit for it.

    0
    #115703

    Dayton
    Member

    Zero,
    Since you seem like a real fun and lightly grounded guy, kind of an abstract thinker, let’s work with that a little.  Mike C. attempted to give you a lantern to light your path, but no… you had to wave it around, spit on it and see if the spit on the glass was hot enough to hiss, and see if you could dim the light.  So, how about a Zen Koan to put in perspective where I see you heading – and I can only deduce where you are heading by looking at your path so far and predicting linearity, which I realize is a huge assumption.  But, nonetheless:  
    In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
    “I do not need a lantern,” he said. “Darkness or light is all the same to me.”
    “I know you do not need a lantern to find your way,” his friend replied, “but if you don’t have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it.”
    The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
    “Look out where you are going!” he exclaimed to the stranger. “Can’t you see this lantern?”
    “Your candle has burned out, brother,” replied the stranger.
    Right now, a lantern was attempted to be handed to you, but being apparently of poor sight you did not recognize it for the tool it was.   How about taking the lantern, assuring it remains lighted, and moving forward with it?   Near blind or not  – it should help some since seeing any additional light will help your cause and others will be able to see you coming.

    Vinny

    0
    #115704

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Stan:
    Thanks for insights. I would do further research and learn more about PDCA’s origin. I have been asked to correct either way. When I credited to Deming, people called and said it is Shewhart Cycle. When I credited Shewhart, I hear it otherwise. If you have a specific reference going back in time, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I will do some digging too!
    Either way, my concern with Check in PDCA still holds. As we implement Six Sigma, our objective is reduce variability around target, not build to somel limits, and calculate Sigma level.
    Regards,
    Praveen

    0
    #115705

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Here is info from ASQ Website about PDCA:
    Plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle: A four-step process for quality improvement. In the first step (plan), a plan to effect improvement is developed. In the second step (do), the plan is carried out, preferably on a small scale. In the third step (check), the effects of the plan are observed. In the last step (act), the results are studied to determine what was learned and what can be predicted. The plan-do-check-act cycle is sometimes referred to as the Shewhart cycle, because Walter A. Shewhart discussed the concept in his book Statistical Method From the Viewpoint of Quality Control, and as the Deming cycle, because W. Edwards Deming introduced the concept in Japan. The Japanese subsequently called it the Deming cycle. Also called the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle.
    I hope it clarifies it. Looks like Juran and Deming both are party to PDCA. The concepts of PDCA still goes back to Shewhart years.
    Praveen

    0
    #115708

    Darth
    Participant

    Here is some additional references:
    The concept of the PDCA Cycle was originally developed by Walter Shewhart, the pioneering statistician who developed statistical process control in the Bell Laboratories in the US during the 1930’s. It is often referred to as `the Shewhart Cycle’. It was taken up and promoted very effectively from the 1950s on by the famous Quality Management authority, W. Edwards Deming, and is consequently known by many as `the Deming Wheel’.
    The PDCA (or PDSA) Cycle was originally conceived by Walter Shewhart in 1930’s, and later adopted by W. Edwards Deming. The model provides a framework for the improvement of a process or system. It can be used to guide the entire improvement project, or to develop specific projects once target improvement areas have been identified.
    The PDCA cycle is also known as the Deming Cycle, the Deming wheel of continuous improvement spiral.
    Its origin can be traced back to the eminent statistics expert Mr. Walter A. Shewart, in the 1920’s. He introduced the concept of PLAN, DO and SEE.
    The late Total Quality Management (TQM) guru and renowned statistician Edward W. Deming modified the SHEWART cycle as: PLAN, DO, STUDY, and ACT.
    Along with the other well-known American quality guru-J.M. Juran, Deming went to Japan as part of the occupation forces of the allies after World War II. Deming taught a lot of Quality Improvement methods to the Japanese, including the usage of statistics and the PLAN, DO, STUDY, ACT cycle.
    The subsequent results of the Japanese industry, business and government are now a part of business history and well documented internationally.
    The Japanese modified Deming’s coinage of PLAN, DO, STUDY and ACT to the present-day, universally accepted PDCA acronym for systematic management.
     

    0
    #115712

    Darth
    Participant

    Sorry Vinny, your forte is little known Italian mathematicians, not Zen Masters.  In fact, I recall that you told this story once and have taken the liberty of copying and pasting from a previous post of yours.
    In early times in Italy, chianti bottle lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.
    “What, where the hxxl did the wine go?  I don’t need no friggin lantern,” he said. “Darkness or light is all the same to me.”
    “I know you do not need a lantern to find your way,” his friend replied, “but if you don’t have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it.”
    The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him.
    “What the fxxk, you some kinda idiot or something!” he exclaimed to the stranger. “Can’t you see this friggin lantern?”
    “You talking to me?  You want a piece of me?  Your candle has burned out, badda bing, badda boom,” replied the stranger.
    The blind man pulled out a 44 mag and shot the stranger dead.  So, the moral of the story is don’t mess with the blind guy.  Warning to Zero, don’t mess with Carnell or you might wake up one morning and find Stan’s head in your bed…or worse, the whole body.

    0
    #115714

    Dayton
    Member

    Yeah, Darth thanks for the reality check, that’s what I meant to say.  
     
    Screw that Kung Fu wander the desert dragon scars burnt into my forearm vague beyond belief riddle within a riddle enigma within an enigma horses intuitively understand me follow me Grasshopper and I’ll take you to meet a really tough blind monk or I’ll kick you upside the head princess hunting crap –
     
    Zero, when you’re talking trash to forum members, you’re talking to me too.  And… You talkin’ to me?   You talkin’ to me?   You talkin’ to me?   Then who the hell else are you talkin’ to?   You talkin’ to me?   Well I’m the only one here.   Who do you think you’re talking to?   Oh yeah?   Huh?  Ok…
     Vinny

    0
    #115724

    Mikel
    Member

    Sorry Darth, I am a reformed man and Mrs. Stan doesn’t allow that type of fun and games anymore.
     

    0
    #115735

    Darth
    Participant

    Good, because it can only lead to more little Stans being brought into this world and we certainly have enough Stans already.  Now we will have more Stans than Fords so an addition will also have to be built onto the garage as well as the main house of Casa de Stans. 

    0
    #115751

    zZerochastened
    Member

    Pondering the recent repartee, he suddenly realized that he’d wandered into a cult meeting and unintentionally pissed on the the icon. Something similar happened in the mid ’70’s while spending the day/night at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, when he pointed his bare feet at the central enclave. He was chastened and apologized liberally.
    Vinny, reread my posts and MC’s replies and see if you can find something helpful in there?? I wasn’t attacking 6S, just the way it is being presented at my Co (using metaphors  “trash talking”). I was then called the equivalent of a burned out pathetic loser. Howzthat helpful? Where’s the lantern in that? Is it the Zen master’s WHACK!? hmmmmm…..
    Ok, you want a piece of me? Show me what ya got. Yeah you with that shiny thing around yer neck..come on come on…

    0
    #115753

    miranax
    Participant

    Mariana, it looks like you started a turf war…a hilarious one that is…

    0
    #115756

    Dayton
    Member

    Zero,
     
    Good, let’s do it, OK right now I’m dancing around, bobbing and weaving – keep watching the shiny thing around my neck don’t watch the blindingly fast hands…. WHACK…… keep watching the shiny thing don’t watch the spinning feet…. WHACK…..  keep watching the shiny thing…. WHACK…. WHACK…. 
     
    This is just too easy, I’m starting to feel the townspeople’s disdain for thumping you so roundly…. And I’m beginning now to just dance and weave saying….. “He started it with his mean spirited abstract tough guy stuff…and all of those intimidating temple and pointed feet analogies.”
     
    Get some antiseptic and gauze bandages and leave poor Mike Carnell alone he’s simply an experienced and well educated ex-Marine Six Sigma leader and business consultant extraordinaire and does his best to confidently speak his mind as he steps into the fray and set right the statements of forum visitors who might either unintentionally or intentionally lead the more impressionable and easily influenced amongst us astray.
     
    As an example, your insights had me on the verge of turning in my little Black Belt sash and third party training provided tunic and moving on to a real field until I realized your comments were just the randomized expression of either frustration, boredom or simply just funning with us.
     Vinny

    0
    #115759

    zZerochastened
    Member

    I t was a slow and frustrating day in the lab….
    MC = Mariine Corps?
    Cheers ,
    don’t follow me, follow the sandal, the sandal…. smh*
    * smileyfaceher
    question?

    0
    #115760

    zZerochastened
    Member

    Nevermind.

    0
    #115820

    magesh
    Participant

    Hmmm…. good question.
    But in reality this 6sigma itself is too good to achieve.

    0
    #124211

    Sykes
    Member

    Hello , i just read your post and it really interests me, i am writing a project on EWMA control charts, I wonder if you canbe of some assistance .
     
    Please if you can i would like you to send me a reply via myu e-mail address on [email protected]
    Thanks
     
    Anybody willing to be of some assistance can also contact me via mail.
    Best Regards

    0
Viewing 82 posts - 1 through 82 (of 82 total)

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