iSixSigma

Credentials for website advisors

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Credentials for website advisors

Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33685

    Pace
    Participant

    To all on this site:
    Hi, my name is Michelle.  I am a student at University of Phoenix (BS in business and information technology).  I am currently writing a paper titled “Quality Management and the Internet: Value or Waste.”  I come to this site to get advice and learn more about Six Sigma, but I don’t know the QUALITY of advice put out on this forum because we don’t know the credentials of those providing the advice and tips. 
     Some give their names but we don’t know their education, experiences, awards, publications, and so on.  Credentials are so important, so should a site like this REQUIRE a page on which people who want to give advice and recommendations can post their credentials?  We can check on the credentials of Physicians so why can’t we check on the backgrounds of people giving advice on this site.  If they don’t “list their vitas” on the special section of a website, then we know to ignore their discussion and advice.  A good example is Dr. Harry’s forum.  He has provided an extensive biography that has been clearly displayed.  This gave me a “fuzzy” feeling when I quoted his work in another paper I was working on.
    I want to hear from as many people on this topic as possible.  If enough people respond to this post I can use the data like survey information and report percentages and so on.  I will be happy to post back my findings.

    0
    #91531

    Statman
    Member

    Hi Michelle,
     
    The reason that I have made the decision to be and remain anonymous on this forum go to the spirit of your previous post I believe.  I spent quite a bit of time reading the archives of posts on this forum before I started to post to it and I came to the conclusion  that there are some very important aspects of six sigma and applied statistics that are discussed as well as some important questions asked by the practitioners.  What I noticed however, is that the discussions broke down when the experts began to promote their credentials and assail the reputation and credentials of anyone that disagreed with them.  Also, I do not want to give the impression that I have alternative motives in my posts.
     
    I know that the downside of this is that the reader may question the validity of the advice, but you should judge the quality of the advice on its merits not the “credentials” of the poster.  If I give questionable advice, you can bet with a high level of confidence that Gabriel, Stan, Mike, Reigle, and several others will jump on it like flies on ….. , as I will to them. That’s the checks and balances.  With all due respect to Dr Harry, The Mikel Harry forum on the other hand,  is only his opinion.  No checks and balances.

    0
    #91532

    DaveG
    Participant

    Michelle,
    You’ll find posters have several dimensions:
    1 Advisors and Advisees
    2 Tool Wielders
    3 Common Sense vs. Arcane
    4 Industry – Manufacturing / Health / IT / Transactional
    5 Position – Largely Problem-Solvers, not Executives
    to name a few.  The pure debate here is tremendous and this is a true community.  Your idea is well-conceived, but will it really add insight?  You might choose to dissect the threads on a macro- and micro-level.
    [email protected] if you want my resume.
    Also, contact the site managers to get their input on publishing your study.

    0
    #91533

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Statman:Do you think the checks and balances should come from the “general poplulation” or should they be administered by a group of recognized experts (who has posted credentials)?  I strongly agree with Michelle … people should post their credentials for all to see.  Too many people these days hide behind being “annonymous” so they can not be held accountable (anything else is just a rationalization for not being held accountable).  We preach that “management” must be made accountable and this is the way of Six Sigma … so why don’t we apply it to ourselves and hold ourselves accountable?  I do believe that good leaders are willing to do this for the benefit of our followers.I think what Michelle is saying is this … If you want to post unsolicited opinions that is one thing, but if someone is looking for professional direction, that is quite another thing.  People looking for leadership, guidance, direction,and cookbooks must know the credentials of those providing the information.  Opinion and discussion does not need “backing up” but advice does.  If you look back through the posts on this site you will find people offering advice (a form of consulting, mentoring, or coaching), not just “general discussion and opinons”.  I would be willing to post my credentials in a special section, would you? Reigle Stewart

    0
    #91535

    Gabriel
    Participant

    I already posted this, but for the record in this thread:
    ” Hey! It’s a discussion forum, where you have from PhDs (not my case) to beginners (closer, but not may case either).
    I mean, did you visit your doctor in person or he/she diagnosed your case from a chat room in the Internet?
    This is a place to share knowledge and opinions, ask and answer questions, and debate. Not a consultancy firm. “
    And I’d add to that, “and it’s free”. How much did your doctor charge you?
    By the way, I remember participating in a thread about this subject when I was new in the forum (about 2 years ago). May be you can find it.

    0
    #91536

    Statman
    Member

    OK
    I am Bruce Wayne – Recluse Millionaire and Philanthropist
     
    This is a free forum Reigle.  I am not getting paid for my advise nor are you or anyone else.  If you want to get advise based on credentials, hire a consultant or buy a book.
     
    As soon as we open that Pandora’s Box then we will only be left with the Intellectia disconnected from the real world talking in circles.  (kinda like a Univerisity)
     
    No one should feel constrained from giving advise because of their lack of credentials.  No one should feel that they are the only one that can give advise because of their credentials.  I have learned more about applied statistics and process improvement from the operator on the floor than any expert.
     
    If you personally would like to know my credentials let me know how to contact you.
     
    Statman

    0
    #91539

    Taylor
    Member

    Here, here. Well said, Gabriel. You get what you pay for…in this case, you get some good with some bad. And it’s the readers job to figure out which is which.
    The point of a forum is to share ideas and thoughts. Are the republicans more right than democrats? If some people on this thread were leading the world, we would only see half of the population contributing thoughts.
    The whole idea of qualifications is a crock of you know what. I know plenty of people in Six Sigma who are not published, don’t have a PhD, and deliver exception results for their corporation — every day.
    This whole topic sounds like a plea to put Dr. Harry (your obvious idol) on a throne far above everyone else. Give it a rest already. It wouldn’t surprise me if you are Michelle and staged this whole discussion just so you could chime in on the topic.
    Enough already, Reigel. Let’s help others with problems rather than stroking the egos of our friends. OK?
    Taylor Miller

    0
    #91544

    Interested Bystander
    Participant

    Statman, this is a very poor attitude you have.  Seems that Michelle is really making a lot of you so called experts shake in your boots a little.  Reigle has a really good point about willingness to post credentials.  Being a “free website” has nothing to do with demonstrated integrity (which is one thing that credentials do).  Payment for advise has nothing to do with Michelle’s originating question.  I am surprised at how some of the experts are already starting to head for the hills and hide behind grass skirts.  As a publisher, I am going to closely follow this thread.  Maybe the only Pandora’s Box you refer to is your own background.

    0
    #91547

    lin
    Participant

    To Taylor;
    If qualifications are a crock (as you say) why does the world put so much emphasis on them?  I must vote on the side of Michelle.

    0
    #91549

    Taylor
    Member

    It’s only Reigel and his friends that put that much emphasis on them. You need to find some new friends to hang out with or work with.
     

    0
    #91551

    Anonymous
    Participant

    Taylor;Thanks for the input, I will keep your advice in mind.  Your guidance seems to support Michaelle’s premise.Bill (a guy in need of new friends)

    0
    #91554

    Statman
    Member

    What are your credentials to advise me to post my credentials?  See how this works.  It becomes a silly and nonvalue added game.  If my credentials did not meet a standard, would you value my posts less?  Would you recommend that I stop posting?  And if they exceed a standard, do you put blind faith in them?  Where does this take us?
    As I said in my previous post, If you personally want to see my credentials.  Let me know how to contact you.  Otherwise, you can judge my advise on its merits.  Be that good or bad.
    Statman

    0
    #91557

    John J. McDonough
    Participant

    We’ve seen a lot on this forum about various experts with all sorts of credentials who can be terribly unhelpful.  Perhaps worse, on the Internet it’s relatively simple to be at least a little anonymous, and if I were to post a bunch of hyped credentials, could you realistically check them?
    There was a post a while back that asked the difference between a Black Belt and a Certified Black Belt.  I didn’t respond (because the thread was pretty stale), but my answer is pretty simple.  A Black Belt is someone with tremendous value to his employer.  A Certified Black Belt is someone who can get the interview.  It’s pretty much the same with credentials.
    This is a pretty small group on this forum.  It doesn’t take a lot to figure out who knows what they are talking about, and who doesn’t.  So the real measures are open and transparent – “by their fruits shall you know them”.
    –McD
     

    0
    #91562

    Anonymous
    Participant

    I dont want to eat any fruit I can not look at first!!!!

    0
    #91564

    Statman
    Member

    I agree John,
    Also, nobody is forced to visit this forum or take the advice that is presented.
    I think that someone (not you) is trying to convert this forum into something that it was never intended to be and that is a solicitation pool for potential clients. 

    0
    #91574

    Mikel
    Member

    Reigle,
    Just for you, I will do this one time.
    BS – Engineering
    MBA
    28 years experience in improvement, 8 years with Motorola doing Six Sigma
    Motorola Training – 956 hours including MMI
    Small business owner and occasional Consultant – clients in the past year include Mother Motorola.
     
    Happy?

    0
    #91580

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Stan:
    I must admit that after reading a little about you, I now have a much better picture (and appreciation) of your responses.  It is apparent that you are a well seasoned veteran of quality improvement and even Six Sigma.  Posting your background was a good thing and in my opinion shows good leadership.  At least for me, I will have a deeper understanding of where you are coming from.
    Respectfully
    Reigle Stewart

    0
    #91597

    Mikel
    Member

    Thank you.

    0
    #91602

    Schuette
    Participant

    You are absolutely correct.  You should not eat a piece of fruit before you look at the FRUIT.  Not the credentials of the fruit.  Once again, people are trying to take thinking out of the equation.  Let me finding someone with good credentials and blindly follow their advice.You decide to eat the fruit if it looks good!  Follow the same practice with the advice.  Listen and think it through.  Good advice is good advice regardless of credentials…

    0
    #91603

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Jim:
    This discussion is not about the after-the-fact quality condition of some piece of advice that one person gives to another.  Its not about whether or not opionions possess some type of intrinsic quality.  The issue is about how one could know (a priori) whether or not a piece of advice could be bad (or good for that matter).  What is the general likelihood you are getting good (or bad) advice in the light of ambiguous circumstances.  Credentials help a person cut through ambiguity for purposes of better decision making.  Credentials improve the Gage R&R of decision making.  Credentials reduces “consumer risk” as opposed to “producer’s risk.”
    If person “A” has a lot of credentials in a certain field and person “B” does not, then in the absence of any other knowledge about A and B, person A is the obvious choice.  This is the external purpose of credentials.  Person A is more likely to provide credible information and data than person B.  Your argument is like saying “you don’t need a degree in physics to say a three legged stool will fall over if one leg of the stool is suddenly removed.”  Nobody in their right mind would disagree with this.
    Credible information (and data) is created by people without credentials (all the time this goes on) … there is no argument with this point.  However, credentials do have a purpose … they are a verifiable source of credibility, knowledge, and experience… they say that you meet some type of standard … thats all … while it is true that the standard might not be the right one or it may be too low or too high, it is the current standard from which quality judgements are made. 
    So why do customers create performance specifications for their CTQ’s?  Do they hold a minimum performance expectation?  Do they expect the producer to “certify” their capability to meet the specifications?  If what you say is true, then ISO-9000 is worthless and says nothing about a company, its management, or its aims.  If ISO-9000 is really worthless then why do so many corporations require it … maybe because its better than having no standard at all! 
    Why do physicians have to pass certification exams?  Why do accountants have professional standards?  Why don’t we just take peoples word on everything … If Joe Blow says he is an astro-physicist then lets just blindly believe he is and employ him .. lets not ask for references, education, experience, or anything … lets just skim a website chat room for a short period and make the determination.  Lets let him make all kinds of “errors” until we realize he is nothing more than a hobbyist astro-physicist.  Granted, Joe Blow can lie (unintentionally because he really believes he is super good at astro-physics) … but all of that does not negate the purpose and need for credentials.  A sample of one does not make a universe.
    Reigle Stewart

    0
    #91605

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Jim:
    My position is simple.  I agree with you that one should never judge the fruit by its appearance … even children know that “looks” can be deceiving.  However, I am saying that the best way to assess the eat-ability of fruit is to TEST it, not just LOOK at it.  Looks is only one of the tests.  If all of the relevant tests are “passed” then we say the person “has credentials.”  So what are the “tests” that ensures a person is really a “black belt” or green belt.  Is there more to it than a knowledge exam and one or two projects.  Should they serve up references.  What criteria should be met?
    An example of this is the ASQ black belt certification .. it is good thing, but by itself says little … even career university professors could easily pass the exam.  However, when we take favorable exam results and couple that with a good vita and with sound references … well that reinforces the idea that this person probably has had demonstrated experience and success (assuming the candidate is not a blatent liar which most people are not) … so these CREDENTIALS are likely to be a good leading indicator that the person “can do.”
    Many people are against credentials because of their own insecurites about their own skills and abilities … fear of not “making the grade” and that sort of thing.  Some people feel the need to hide in the shadows of “anonymous” so no one knows who they are … thereby avoiding the stand-up kind of accountability that six sigma demands.  Hey … they are certainly free to voice their opinion … but how many times on this site does someone say “based on my experience you should do this or that or go that direction or another.”  This is not OPINION, its hard core advice because they are attempting to underscore the advice with proven experience (or knowledge) of some type.
    Reigle Stewart

    0
    #91608

    R.A. Fisher
    Participant

    Yea, but precisely how many bazillions of dollars have you saved?How many books have you written?Do you have a statistical distribution named after you?How long have you personally known Mikel Harry? How many miles have you riden on horseback with Mikel?How many black belts does it take to screw in a light bulb?How many decimal places of pi do you know?Can you all seven dwarfs?These are all questions that come to mind.Maybe you can submit several references.I think Statman has you beat – he’s a millionare and a philanthropist!! 

    0
    #91611

    Statman
    Member

    Ronald,
    Please do not post to the Forum any more.  You lack the credentials to contribute.  You were long dead and in your grave by the time Motorola invented statistics.  You have never even met the almighty MH or RS. 
    Statman

    0
    #91617

    Schuette
    Participant

    Reigle,
    While I can see your point, all too often I see people throwing around credentials as a substitute for critical thinking.  “You should do what I say because of who I am”.  Good advice will stand on its own with critcal thinking and explanation.
    I find that people do not hide behind this anonymity, they feel no need to toot their horn!  I would guess that most of the people contibuting to this site have a fairly impressive list of credentials.
    I also find that people who need to throw these credetials around tend to have a self-confidence problem.  What they have to say can’t stand on its own.
    Naive perhaps…

    0
    #91620

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Statman:
    Having worked most of my career in mechanical engineering design and quite a bit in manufacturing, I now understand why quality professionals and statiticians were never given access to the boardrooms of the corporate world.  This may sound like a dig, but it really is not designed to be such … its just the truth of the matter.  If you do a search on my name on this forum and then just quickly scan …  a) what I have tried to offer and b) many of the responses are hostile. 
    My first natural reaction is to defend myself and I did just that … it is so easy to get sucked into the defensive mode and throw some mud.  Then I tried to ignore the “noise” and keep on contributing.  I mean this all sounds like complaining, but believe me I am not.  Personally, I could care less … all of this “tit for tat” has zero effect on my life. But when you try to help others and get continually blasted … give me a break … it aint worth it.  For example … did the comments of your last post add or detract value? All that stuff about R.A. Fisher … just more “noise” that attempts to discredit me and Dr. Harry.  The use of initials … do you think that is “cute.”
    What I am saying is that I am a highly knowledgeable and experienced practioner that has invested a lot of personal time in preparing and making “cookbook” posts to help novices find “good” and “verifiable” solutions to their problems … I know many people feel the need to contribute back to a profession that has given them so much.  Believe me, other “unbiased” professionals have followed the threads on this site and see what is going on … I know, they call me and discuss these things. 
    You and others like Stan and Carnell want to “mock” me, throw jabs, degrade, make subtle references, try to down play my relationship with Dr. Harry and just plain be mean sometimes.  Professional jealousy abounds on this forum because of a few “characters” that insist on being unprofessional like children trying to make themselves look “bigger and better” by putting others down.  Yes, my home is partially made of glass and I am now throwing stones … the difference is that I am now moving on to a different neighborhood.  I have lost my motivation to make contributions to this forum (in word and spirit). 
    I said I was going to move on a while back (because of all the crap) but several followers of the forum asked me not to let the “noise” get in the way so I came back and tried again. The asked me to keep posting for the sake of newcomers and novice practitioners.  So I did … but it has now reached a point of pure slander.  Making contributions is not a pleasureable thing on this forum because of the snobbery and petty verbal games of a few.  Frankly, I am sick of it.  You and Stan and some others say this forum is for opinions … well I make my opinions and then they say I am “promoting” but they dont say this to anyone else making references to people or books…just me.  I do believe this is “bias.” 
    Before Dr. Harry’s book, what quality professional was on 3 “best seller” lists?  To me you (as quality professionals) should be happy about this, but yet you are more concerned about how much money he has made or “how big his ranch is.”  Give me a break … are you now opposed to capitalism because Dr. Harry made good money and you didnt?  Any idea how much Deming made?  Why dont you focus on this … and by the way … when I say “you” I mean the “the lot of you … and you know who I mean.”
    Lets be quantitative about this (in a six sigma kind of way).  Search on my name and count the number of negative references about me (and Dr. Harry) and then count the number of positives … what you discover will be a real eye-opener … the bias is beyond belief … and it all comes from a few … like yourself Statman.  You may be a “Statman” but your are certainly not a “Fairman.”  I asked to be judged on my statistical and engineering work that has been put forth on this site.  I have repeatedly asked to show me where the math or engineering is wrong … or a better way … but this is not done.  What is returned is just qualitative rehtoric …
    In closing … each of you in some way has been impacted by the work of Dr. Harry.  I am not afraid to admit this fact.  When great people do great things it is only natural to follow in their footstep and try to extend and perpetuate the good they bring.  Dr. Harry has largely made the world of Six Sigma.  He is the reason that many quality professionals enjoy a better salary today … just read the Quality Progrees surveys that shows Black Belts make more than their counterparts. 
    Statman, you would be well advised to build on his experiences and leave a mark of your own.  When you try to “tarnish” others by inference or direct attack, you do nothing more than make yourself look small.  My frustration is now over … I have said all that I need to say … I wish all of you the best of luck and hope you put this forum on the right track.  You need not prepare a response … I will not be back to read it.
    Reigle Stewart 

    0
    #91623

    Doc
    Participant

    Another option to credentials, which for many are almost impossible to confirm, would be to provide specific references to published materials – peer-reviewed journals and published books – where possible when answering questions.
    I have always tended to think that it is buyer beware when it comes to advice over the internet. How do we know that anyone is who they say they are, let alone that their credentials are valid?

    0
    #91624

    JJ
    Participant

    what do u mean by ‘credentials’? and whose the best ‘judge’ of them? i wouldnt mind being able to rate posters and see posters ratings much like the way they do on ebay…ratings made by customers/readers. like applying 6sigma methods to the 6sigma ‘advice giving’ process.

    0
    #91626

    Mikel
    Member

    Reigle,
    You may note that not many Mechanical Engineers are invited into boardrooms either. There are lots of old fat bald guys however, so maybe you have a chance.

    0
    #91635

    John J. McDonough
    Participant

    Reigle
    You are getting close, here, to what I meant when I said about the fruit.
    In the absence of any other data, credentials may very well be all we have to guide us.  But on this forum, we have much more credible evidence.
    All it takes is to click on a person’s name in this forum, and read the responses that show up.  One can pretty quickly tell whether the poster is a knowledgable practitioner who is trying to help, or a blowhard trying to impress us with his “credentials”.
    In some other context, we might not have that data, but here we do.
    –McD
     

    0
    #91642

    bubba
    Participant

    Michelle,
    Are you some complete air head? You read bios and cant keep track of one post to another or are you just looking for a job with Six Sigma Management Institute when you complete this infamous paper? How about if we require an IQ test to post anything on the site? Then you would have to do your own research.
    You are sucking up to the old bald fat guy? Let’s see he showed up on August 7 as Guess Who giving people crap about forum bantering and they needed to get a life and credentials. He bantering with Stan has become legendary in just a couple months and the cool part is he usually tries to end it with “I won’t respond any more” and then does September 3 post. In the same day he discolsed his identity – like anyone other than “Gary” knew. He also disclosed he worked for Uniworld Consulting. On September 16, Stan called him on it when he found him on the Six Sigma Management Institute web site right below Mike Harry. In a August 28 post he refered to mike Harry as having been refered to “over and over as the Godfather of Six Sigma.” September 17 HAUGHT asked for references in the Godfather gig. Long answer but it turns out it was one.
    Harry has a new book out that Stewart has plugged repeatedly and Harry has a new business. What could all this mean.
    After all this – which you seemed to have missed while you were sleeping – Stewart is acting like he is wounded as a “professional” which is a term reserved for him andthose he worships and those that worship him (you seem to want in that club pretty bad). Now he won’t come out and play anymore. You may be a little misty but there are quite a few of us that have a pool going on the number of hours after that last response it takes before he is back on getting his butt kicked by Stan, Jim, Dr. Scott and Statman.
    The truth is I don’t believe there is a Michelle and there isn’t a paper.
    Go figure.

    0
    #93830

    muhannad al nabulsi
    Participant

    Congratulation for your excellent “out-standing”logic.So convincing ,a message for several persons who try to discuss basic things over and over,just for the purpose of discussion,may be.  Muhannad

    0
    #93841

    Lao Tzee
    Participant

    This whole topic sounds like a plea to put Dr. Harry (your obvious idol) on a throne far above everyone else. It wouldn’t surprise me if you are Michelle and staged this whole discussion just so you could chime in on the topic.  ( Taylor )
    Quite interesting !!!!       It´s been a somewhat long time that Michelle posted his petition on this Forum and nothing has been heard fom him either to thank for, or comment  the answers he´s been sent, or the application hes´done to them   How did you find the material Michelle? (Lao Tzee)
     

    0
    #93842

    Lao Tzee
    Participant

    By their fruits you´ll know ´ em

    0
Viewing 33 posts - 1 through 33 (of 33 total)

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