# Control Charts (Non-normal Distribution)

Six Sigma – iSixSigma › Forums › General Forums › Tools & Templates › Control Charts (Non-normal Distribution)

- This topic has 24 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 hours, 56 minutes ago by fausto.galetto.

- AuthorPosts
- December 7, 2019 at 3:25 am #244326

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.I would like to get solution to the cases shown in the file.

THANKS in advance

Fausto Galetto

###### Attachments:

- ISIXSIGMA-INSIGHTS_Two-cases-for-Master-Black-Belts-dec-2019.docxYou must be signed in to download files.

0December 7, 2019 at 10:42 am #244328

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.1. A quick look at the file you have attached strongly suggests you are trying to market your consulting services – this is a violation of the TOS of this site.

2. If you want to challenge the authors of the books/papers you have cited, the proper approach would be for you to submit your efforts to a peer reviewed journal specializing in process/quality control.

0December 7, 2019 at 11:07 am #244329

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.Dear Robert Butler,

**NO CONSULTING SERVICES TO BE SOLD!****I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).**I do not want to challenge the authors!!!

THEY did not provide the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat:

I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

0December 7, 2019 at 11:33 am #244330@rbutler, @fausto.galetto

Fausto,

The Montgomery example appears to be from one of his books published in 1996. He uses the I/MR chart with transformed data to create a control chart of MTBF which is obviously going to not be a normal distribution. Since that time, Minitab has brought out the G and T charts for time between rare events. Possibly you can rerun the data using one or the other and see what it says about the process being in or out of control.

1December 7, 2019 at 12:09 pm #244331

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.Dear Darth,

**I do not have MINITAB.**So I cannot do what you suggest!

Can somebody do it ?

0January 10, 2020 at 5:13 am #244932

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.Dear all,

I downlodaded Minitab 19 BECAUSE NOBODY tird to solve the cases.

Here you find sometyhing new about the Darth suggestion

0January 10, 2020 at 1:35 pm #244938

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases. As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.

@Darth pointed you in a direction and gave you a reference. Given what he offered your approach should have been to get a copy of the book referenced, learn about G and T charts, and do the work manually. Agreed it would have taken more time than if you had a program handy but by doing things manually (at least once) you would have learned a great deal and also solved your problem.

0January 12, 2020 at 3:46 am #244956

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.I try again to upload the frist part of my Open Letter To MBB.

MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION

###### Attachments:

- Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-1A.pdfYou must be signed in to download files.

0January 12, 2020 at 3:49 am #244958

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.@ …

This is the SECOND part of my Open Letter To MBB.

MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

**IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION**###### Attachments:

- Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-2A.pdfYou must be signed in to download files.

0January 12, 2020 at 9:14 pm #244362Process appears to be in control. Both Weibull and Exponential seem to be good fits for the data.

1January 13, 2020 at 3:51 am #244986

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.DID YOU read the two documents I uploaded yesterday?

THERE, there is the same figure you uploaded.

MINITAB makes a WRONG analysis: the Process is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I asked to Minitab the THEORY of T Charts!!!!!

Let’s wait to see IF they provide it….

0January 13, 2020 at 2:06 pm #244988

Jay ArthurParticipant@Knowwareman**Include @Knowwareman in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.A T Chart (time between) transforms the exponential data to a Weibull distribution.

Then it uses the transformed data to calculate limits.

###### Attachments:

- Hours-Between-Failures.xlsxYou must be signed in to download files.

0January 14, 2020 at 3:05 am #245462

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.DID YOU realise that your statements are NONSENSE?

“”””

*I agree nobody,***including yourself**, tried to solve the cases. As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.””””In the Fausto Galetto’s two documents there is the solution, based on THEORY!!!

0January 14, 2020 at 3:16 am #245463

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.THANK you for your file.

Unfortunately the THEORY behind is not sound…

See my uploaded documents………

than other who do not know how to deal with the twwo cases!**In any case you are better**Fausto Galetto

0January 14, 2020 at 2:31 pm #245473

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.What an

**IMPRESSIVE**retort!!! @fausto.galetto DO YOU appreciate the**INEFFABLE TWADDLE**of this entire thread (see, I can yell, insult, and boldface type too) ?Let’s do a recap:

1. OP initial post says he wants a solution for two items in an attached document.

2. I do a quick skim and offer the comment that I think the correct venue for the OP would be a peer reviewed paper since it certainly looked like a challenge to the authors/papers cited.

3. The OP responds and assures me this is not the case – all he wants is for some generic six sigma master black belts to provide a solution. Given what follows later it is obvious he doesn’t want a solution – just confirmation of his views.

4. @Darth offers a suggestion and a recommendation to try running Minitab – and in the following OP post @Darth gets slapped down for his suggestions.

5. Reluctantly, the OP announces he has downloaded Minitab “BECAUSE NOBODY tird to solve the cases”

6. The OP then lays into Minitab

because “MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….*on this forum*BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!! IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION”

7. @Darth tries again with a Minitab analysis and provides a graph of the results – the OP slaps him down again.

8. The OP shifts gears – suddenly, somehow, the OP knows “MINITAB makes a WRONG analysis: the Process is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I asked to Minitab the THEORY of T Charts!!!!!

9. The OP then slams me for stating he hasn’t tried to solve the cases. OK, fine, I’ll assume he did try. I probably should have said the OP hadn’t tried to do any research with respect to finding the theory of T control charts or really understanding anything about them other than insist Minitab drop everything and get back to him with the demanded information pronto! – but this really doesn’t matter because, as one can see in the other posts, the OP KNOWS Minitab is wrong because he has a proof based on THEORY! What theory he doesn’t say but apparently it doesn’t matter since this THEORY is better than the THEORY of T Charts – even though, by his own admission, he doesn’t know what that theory is.

Given the bombast I decided to see what I could find. I couldn’t find a single peer reviewed paper by the OP listed in either Pubmed or Jstor. Granted there are other venues but these two happen to be open to the public and are reasonably extensive.

I did find a list of papers the OP has presented/published at various times and I found some vanity press (SPS) – publish on demand books by the OP – of the group I found the title of his book “The Six Sigma HOAX versus the Golden Integral Quality Approach LEGACY” interesting because the title, as it appears on the illustrated book cover on Amazon, is written in exactly the same manner as the OP’s postings. Given the book title I find it odd that the OP would ask anyone on a Six Sigma site for help. After all, with a title like that one would assume the OP views practitioners of Six Sigma as little more than frauds and con artists.

In summary – the OP believes he has found Minitab to be in error and he wants some generic master black belts to confirm his belief. I do know the folks at Minitab really know statistics and process control. I also know many of the statisticians at Minitab have numerous papers in the peer-reviewed press on statistics and process control and have made presentations at more technical meetings than I could list. Under those circumstances, if the OP really thinks he is right and Minitab is wrong then the OP first needs to take the time to find, and thoroughly understand, the theory behind the T chart – this would require actually researching the topic – books, peer reviewed papers, etc.

In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of the proof is on the challenger, not on those being challenged. If, after doing some extensive research, the OP is still convinced he is right then the proper venue for a challenge of this kind is publication in a peer reviewed journal that addresses issues of this sort.

1January 14, 2020 at 5:16 pm #245518

Sharmin SaylorParticipant@Sharmin**Include @Sharmin in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.@rbutler 👏🏆

0January 14, 2020 at 10:36 pm #245479

Jay ArthurParticipant@Knowwareman**Include @Knowwareman in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.In his initial post, Fausto asked: “I would like to get solution to the cases shown in the file.”

In my position, I often find that people often want me to do their schoolwork for them.

I agree with Robert Butler, ranting about THEORY without offering a competing, well-documented theory is non-productive.

1January 15, 2020 at 9:50 am #245531

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.@Robert Butler

FANTASTIC

THOUSANDS of

Black Belts are unable to solve the cases.**MASTER**See the file

###### Attachments:

- IGNORANCE-vs-PRESUMPTUOUSNESS.pdfYou must be signed in to download files.

0January 15, 2020 at 10:06 am #245533

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.**SINCE 1982 my students had the THEORY to solve the two Cases.****SINCE 1982….**Black Belts have been unable to solve the cases.*Since then*THOUSANDS of MASTER**Deming**: “It is a hazard to copy”. “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make”. “Without theory, experience has no meaning”. “A figure without a theory tells nothing”. «The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications» and Galetto (Quality of methods for quality is important, EOQC Conference, Vienna, 1989) have been very clear about the need of being scientific in Quality Management and decisions. J. Juran praised F. Galetto’s paper during his presentation at Vienna Conference.0January 15, 2020 at 11:05 am #245537

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.**@ Robert Butler**You wrote at point 9

9. The OP then slams me for stating he hasn’t tried to solve the cases. OK, fine, I’ll assume he did try. I probably should have said the OP hadn’t tried to do any research with respect to finding the theory of T control charts or really understanding anything about them other than insist Minitab drop everything and get back to him with the demanded information pronto! – but this really doesn’t matter because, as one can see in the other posts, the OP KNOWS Minitab is wrong because he has a proof based on THEORY! What theory he doesn’t say but apparently it doesn’t matter since this THEORY is better than the THEORY of T Charts – even though, by his own admission, he doesn’t know what that theory is.

**As I told you before you did not read carefully my documents.****There it is said where to find the THEORY that proves Minitab being wrong!****I am still waiting for Minitab reply**0January 15, 2020 at 11:19 am #245538

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.Oh well, in for a penny in for a pound.

@fausto.galetto – great – so now you have completely contradicted your denial of the comments I made in my first post.

I said the following:

/////

1. A quick look at the file you have attached strongly suggests you are trying to market your consulting services – this is a violation of the TOS of this site.

2. If you want to challenge the authors of the books/papers you have cited, the proper approach would be for you to submit your efforts to a peer reviewed journal specializing in process/quality control.

/////

To which you responded:

/////

Dear Robert Butler,

NO CONSULTING SERVICES TO BE SOLD!

I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

I do not want to challenge the authors!!!

THEY did not provide the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat:

I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

/////

…and what followed was a series of posts that demonstrated you were indeed challenging authors and you were not looking for solutions since, by your own admission, you had already solved them and you thought they were wrong and you were right.

So today you post what amounts to an advertisement for your services/training. True, you don’t specifically encourage the reader to purchase anything but the only reference is to you and your publication and the supposed correctness of your approach.

A couple of asides:

1. You say “Since then THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts have been unable to solve the cases.”

a. And you determined this count of “Thousands” how?

b. Why would the fact that “Thousands” of MBB’s have been unable to solve the cases in the way you think they should solve it matter?

c. Given you are challenging the the approach of various authors of books and papers what makes you think your version is correct?

d. I only ask “c” because one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt. The article states “Ken Ono and colleagues” are working on an approach and a summary of their most recent efforts can be found in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

2. It’s nice that Juran praised one of your papers at a symposium – the big question is this – which peer reviewed journal published the work?

0January 16, 2020 at 4:22 am #245552

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.**@ Robert Butler**You wrote:

<p style=”text-align: center;”>*And you determined this count of “Thousands” how?*</p>

It is easily assessed by thinking to the following pointsa) How many people read the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

b) How many PROFESSORS suggested their students the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

c) How many people are MASTER Black Belts?

d) How many MASTER Black Belts use Minitab?

e) How many MASTER Black Belts use JMP?

f) How many MASTER Black Belts use Sixpack?

g) How many PROFESSORS use Minitab …, …?

h) How many STATISTICIANS use Minitab …, …?

You wrote:

<p style=”text-align: center;”>*one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt.*</p>

The fact that according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt does not mean that it was not proved.

It means that the “experts” on the matter did not acknowledge it.

**BTW**. How many people do you know that publically wrote that they made a?**stupid error**You wrote lastly:

<p style=”text-align: center;”>*It’s nice that Juran praised one of your papers at a symposium – the big question is this – which peer reviewed journal published the work?*</p>

Before being asked to enter Politecnico of Turin, I worked for more than 20 years as Quality Director in Corporations

think to write for Peer Reviewed Journals; my papers were presented to International Conferences.**AND I had to prevent problems NOT to****Since you insist on Peer Review**, please find a paper of mine, presented in 2006…I am looking for

**SOLUTIONS by MBB**who are used to use extensively Minitab, JMP, SixPack, SPSS, … AND I am sure about my method: it follows Probability Laws, Statistics, Mathematics and LOGIC!###### Attachments:

- for-R_Butler_Quality-education-versus-Peer-Review_2006.docxYou must be signed in to download files.

0January 16, 2020 at 9:16 am #245555

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.The original focus of this exchange was the issue of the validity of the underpinnings of the T-chart. Your conjecture is that you have developed a theory and this theory is correct and the, apparently to you, unknown theory behind the T-chart is wrong. Your approach to “proving” this is to

1. Ask for a bunch of MBB’s to provide a solution to problem(s) you have posed with the understood assumption that if they don’t exactly reproduce your results then they are wrong.

2. Demand that the folks at Minitab provide the underlying theory of the T chart and along the way prove you are wrong.

As I said in an earlier post to this exchange – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and the burden of the proof is on the individual making the claims not on the people against whom the claims are made. I sincerely doubt you will hear anything from Minitab for the simple reason that, to the best of their knowledge, (as well as to the best of the knowledge of anyone who might be using their T-chart program for process control) what they have is just fine.

It really doesn’t matter what you think about whatever theory you have built nor does it matter that you think you have done whatever it is that you have done correctly. The issue is this – do you have a “reasonable” amount of actual data where you can conclusively show the following:

1. Specific instances where the Minitab T-chart control declared a process to be in control only to find that it really wasn’t in control and when your approach was applied to the same data, your approach identified the out-of-control situation.

2. Specific instances where the Minitab T-chart control declared a process in control, it was found to be in control, and when the data was analyzed with your approach you too found it to be in control.

3. Instances where your approach declared a process to be out-of-control only to find later it was not out-of-control and, when the data was re-analyzed with the Minitab T-chart, their methods identified the process as in control.

4. Instances where your approach declared the process to be in control only to find it was out-of-control and when checked with the Minitab approach the out-of-control situation was correctly identified.

5. …and, once everything is tallied – what kind of results do you have – a meaningful improvement in correct identification of out-of-control situations when dealing with processes needing a T-chart (while simultaneously guarding against increases in false positives) or just some kind of change that, in the long run, is at best, no better than what is currently in use.

You have made a big point about citing some of Deming’s statements concerning theory. Although I can’t recall a specific quote, one big point he made was the need for real data before you did anything else. His book Quality, Productivity, and the Competitive Position is essentially a monument to that point. What you have presented on this forum is a theory bereft of evidence – just claiming everyone else is wrong because it violates your personal theory is not evidence. The kind of evidence you need is as listed in the four points above. If you have that kind of evidence and if what you have appears to be a genuine improvement, then, as I’ve said before, the proper venue for presentation is to a peer reviewed journal that deals in such matters.

In this light, your rebuttal concerning “thousands” is without merit. The point of this thread was that the Minitab T-chart method was wrong and nothing more and it was in this context that you made the claim that “thousands” of MBB’s were wrong. The “proof” you provided in your most recent thread is based on a claim that the entire Minitab analysis package is wrong. In addition, in an attempt to inflate the “thousands” estimate, you dragged in poor old Montgomery and declared his book has BIG errors. Statements such as these are not proof – they are just simple gainsaying.

Now, what to do about the rest of your last post?

1. Your rejoinder concerning the Riemann Hypothesis is standard misdirection boilerplate – the fact remains that if your proof had had any merit it would have made the pages of at least one of the journals on mathematics.

2. How many people have I seen who have admitted a mistake in a publication? Quite a few – you can find corrections and outright retractions with respect to papers in peer reviewed journals if you take the time to go looking for them. One good aspect of the peer review process is that the vast majority of mistakes are found, and corrected, before the paper sees publication.

I happen to know this is true because I do peer reviewing for the statistics sections of papers submitted to one of the scientific journals. I can’t tell you the number of mistakes in statistical analysis I have found in submitted papers. As part of the review process what I do is point out the mistake(s), provide sufficient citations/instructions concerning the correct method to be used, and request the authors re-run the analysis in the manner indicated. The length of the written recommendations varies. The longest I think I’ve ever written ran to almost two full pages of text which were accompanied by attachments in the form of scans of specific pages in some statistical texts. In that instance the authors re-ran the analysis as requested, were able to adjust the reported findings (most of the significant findings did not need to be changed, a couple needed to be dropped, and, most importantly, they found a few things they didn’t know they had which made the paper even better), addressed the concerns of the other reviewers and their paper was accepted for publication.

3. In my career as a statistician, more than 20 of those years were spent as an engineering statistician in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more. I too did not have time to send articles in for peer review and I too made presentations at conferences. Some of those presentations were picked up by various peer reviewed journals and, after some re-writing for purposes of condensation/clarification saw the light of day as a published paper. It was because of my experience that I asked about yours. I thought the question was particularly relevant in light of your position concerning your certainty about the correctness of your efforts.

4. As for reading you archived paper on peer review – no thanks. I seem to recall when I checked you had uploaded more than one paper on the subject of peer review to that site and, if memory serves me correctly, all of them had titles suggesting the text was going to be nothing more than a running complaint about the process.

The peer review process is not perfect and can be very stressful and frustrating – I know this from personal experience. Sometimes the intransigence of the reviewer is enough to drive a person to thoughts of giving up their profession and becoming an itinerant beachcomber. However, based on everything I’ve experienced, the process has far more pluses than minuses and, given the inherent restrictions of time/money/effort of the process, I have yet to see anything that would be a marked improvement.

0January 16, 2020 at 10:16 am #245557

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.**@ Robert Butler**I beg your pardon IF I am not as good as you at writing and talking. So I will not reply to all your statements.

**I am very impressed of your experience**(your writing):*In my career as a statistician, more than 20 of those years were spent as an engineering statistician in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more.*You have the

**right experience to decide IF**the case dealt in the D.C. Montgomery book [**WRONG**book] “Introduction to quality control” about the control chart ofis analysed rightly or wrongly**exponentially distributed data****AND IF**the T Chart [by**MINITAB**] on those data is right or wrong*!!!!!!!!!!!!*0January 16, 2020 at 11:43 am #245558

Chris SeiderParticipant@cseider**Include @cseider in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.January 16, 2020 at 12:29 pm #245559

Robert ButlerParticipant@rbutler**Include @rbutler in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.@cseider – …could be… Happy New Year to you too. :-)

0January 17, 2020 at 6:02 am #245578

fausto.galettoParticipant@fausto.galetto**Include @fausto.galetto in your post and this person will**

be notified via email.**@cseider, @mike-carnell, @rubtler, @darth, @Sharmin**Is this twitter? :)

**NO it is not!****It is**the place where anyone can see IF people solve the Montgomery case of EXPONENTIALLY distributed data!!!**@ Robert Butler**I expected that you would not reply to the two simple questions!Waffling could not help you, in this case!

My January 2020 has been very fruitful:

1. I confirmed again the “Galetto’s Law”

2. The set of Master Black Belts is unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

3. The set of professors suggesting the Montgomery WRONG book are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

4. The “discussion” in this thread

**made me to REALISE**that also statisticians, with more than 20 spent as engineering statisticians in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab5. T charts in MINITAB are WRONG!!!!

I thank all the people who participated to my knowledge increase….

0 - ISIXSIGMA-INSIGHTS_Two-cases-for-Master-Black-Belts-dec-2019.docx
- AuthorPosts

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.