iSixSigma

Entitlement

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Entitlement

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39138

    ROSS
    Member

    All,
        How can we get our process entitlement?
    Tks!
    Tony

    0
    #118410

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Originally, process entitlement meant systematic defects, so that all remaining defects were due to random defect density.
    Unfortunately, this is something else that Dr. Harry ‘borrowed’ and interpreted incorrectly!
    If you think about it is is obvious  – if each facility has a random defect density, which in the semiconductor industry is a function of the clean-room and process technology, and equipment, then you would expect all similar products to share the same yield. Once you identify sources of systematic defects, such as silicon dislocations, and other types of defects, this observation is correct!
     

    0
    #118424

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Don’t listen to this malarky from Andy, he is wrong. His
    only motive here is to bash Dr. Harry, not answer your
    question. Process entitlement capability is the level of
    performance you enjoy when all assignable causes have
    been removed from the system of causation. As you may
    know, systematic effects are nonrandom in nature.
    Process entitlement is the level of capbility that exists
    when only random causes are present. Such a level of
    capability is the best that a given technology can be. You
    can find the answer to this and much more by looking into
    the “ask Dr. Harry” segment of this website. Take a look
    and you too will see for yourself how wrong Andy is.

    0
    #118428

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    If my only motivation was to bash Dr. Harry, as you put it, I wouldn’t take the time to explain my objections.
    Yes, I’m sure you would like everyone to agree with you, but I’m not a member of the Sheep Sigma Club, and neither are many others who visit this forum from time to time! If you want to have a public forum, you should expect a little criticims from time to time. If you don’t like it, make it a private forum and I won’t bother you!
    I believe I have that right as I am happy to provide my real name and I do not attack people personally, only their work and their claims!!!
    Regards,
    Andy
     

    0
    #118431

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy, you are free to say what you like, whenever you
    like. As you say, that is the nature of a public forum. You
    may not see it, but the poster you mention made no
    connection between Dr. Harry and the question of
    process entitlement. It was made by way of your ill-
    intentioned association. Dr. Harry has used the term
    “process entitlement” for many years now, in numerous
    publications. I do not recall him laying any claims to this
    term. Could you please substantiate your accusation? Of
    course you can not because they are false, and you know
    it. I fully understand your envy. I understand how that
    jealousy forces people to revert to bashing. Just look at
    many of the threads on this site. Its alright if you want to
    bash, but please, just recognize how foolish you look in
    doing so. Likewise, you too should expect a little criticism
    from time to time (per your own words). By the way, it is
    not necessary to wave the banner of “I belive I have the
    right …” We all know you do, along with everyone else.
    So maybe you should reconsider a membership in the
    Sheep Sigma Club.

    0
    #118436

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    The term process entitlement is in wide use in Motorola wafer fabs prior to 1987 when Motorola won the Malcolm Baldridge Award. In fact, it was published in Semiconductor International in about 1984, by a group of engineers at Signetics in Idaho, under the title ‘Spatial Yield Analysis’. MOS 8 took great advantege of this technique and became one of the highest yielding waferfabs in North America. (See Roger Bohn’s article – Harvard University.)
    So what quality methods was Motorola using when they won the MB Award – it certainly wasn’t limited to what Dr. Harry documented in 1990. So who changed the process?
    No wonder most of the USA’s industry is relocating to China. Hopefully, they won’t make the same mistake as Dr. Taguchi has taught in China for many years!
    As for jealousy –  I have no interest in ‘dead knowledge.’ My only motivation has been to question some of the wild claims conserning Six Sigma. No wonder you want to attack me – you seem to be trying to perpetuate a falsehood. How appropriate for these times!!!!
    Regards,
    Andy
     

    0
    #118445

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy U:
    I very much appreciated your responses, but I am not quite sure what Motorola Fabs (during the 80’s) has to do with anything.  If you see a connection, OK, I’ll run with that.  More to the point, I offer the following commentary to your recent post.
     
    A) YOUR STATEMENT: “As for jealousy –  I have no interest in ‘dead knowledge.'”
    A) MY RESPONSE: 
    1) So if its not jealousy, then what would you call it?  Obviously, you have a very strong emotional issue at play.  What is the correlation between your accusations and Motorola wafer fabs, or is this just another slight of hand to distract us from your seemingly impetuous tongue?  Better yet, what exactly are your accusations?  Be specific and do provide some verifiable quotes and references.
    2) My understanding is that things like algebra, statistics and certain physical principles are able to exist without a knowledge half-life.  So what knowledge is dead?  Again, please be specific and cite references.
     
    B) YOUR STATEMENT.  “The term process entitlement is in wide use in Motorola wafer fabs prior to 1987 … In fact, it was published in Semiconductor International in about 1984 … it certainly wasn’t limited to what Dr. Harry documented in 1990.” 
    B) MY RESPONSE:
    1) Talk about dead knowledge!  Everything you refer to is only 15 – 20 years old!  Unlike algebra, This Motorola Wafer Fab thing has a half-life, like virtually every case study ever written.  Maybe you need some new and fresh examples! 
    2) What document in 1990 do you refer to?  Dr. Harry’s first published work on Six Sigma was in 1984: “Achieving Quality Excellence: The Strategy, Tactics, and Tools,” first printed by the Government Electronics Group, Motorola Inc.  Within this book, there exists an entire section dedicated to a description of Six Sigma.  The second major publication was in 1987, entitled “The Vision of Six Sigma,” also published by Motorola GEG and later on by Motorola Inc.  Did I miss something here, or were there other publications on the topic of Six Sigma before these?  Please be specific and provide your citations and references.
     
    C) YOUR STATEMENT: “My only motivation has been to question some of the wild claims concerning Six Sigma.” 
    C) MY REPLY: Well, please enlighten us.  What “claims” are you referring to?  Here again, please give specific references.
    For the sake of professional integrity, please provide us with specific, verifiable examples; something other than opinion, hearsay and/or hand waving.  I would certainly think that, given the implied stature of your professional credentials, you (of all people) would want to substantiate your “claims.”  In a recent post, one of this forum’s illustrious mentors had the moral courage to admit he was wrong and that his statements were false and groundless.  Although he was wrong, and admittedly so, it takes a very strong and ethical person to step forward and admit to such.
     
    With the deepest of respect.
    Reigle Stewart

    0
    #118449

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    Judging by your response, you’re the one with emotional issues …
    You’ve missed the point entirely, as many others have .. I am of course referring to how Motorola won the MB award in 1987, which is often quoted as a ‘Six Sigma’ success. The point I’m making is did Motorola use Dr. Harry’s Six Sigma  – or even his Filtration nonesense. Of course it didn’t – as most companies are now finding out!
    I put it to you that the quality processes Motorola used in both Phenoex and Austin waferfabs are not what Dr. Harry published and sold to G.E. What could be clearer than that!
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #118453

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy U:
    Yes indeed, I have emotional issues — from the nagging grief induced by my overwhelming lack of intellectual capacity to my truck tire that won’t retain air.  Its very possible I missed your point.  If you believe so, I humbly apologize. 
    Now, to my point, please provide specific references to substantiate your accusations (without your zig-zagging around the issue).  To your other point, Motorola did win the MB award through the applied efforts of many.  To refresh your wanning memory, we won the award in 1988, not 1987 as you so reference. 
    Dr. Harry’s work in the theory and application of Six Sigma was one of several sources.  As you know, he was appointed to launch and head the Six Sigma Research Institute in late 1989 (at the request of Mr. Bob Galvin).  So maybe you are right, his work was unused and insignificant, but not by the words of Bob Galvin or other members of the executive council.  In fact, they too would disagree with your position of this issue (at least by what they have published in official corporate documents).
    However, Motorola did in fact distribute over 100,000 copies of Dr. Harry’s publication entitled “The Nature of Six Sigma Quality.”  Not only did Motorola print and distribute this document internally, they sold it to other companies (in great quantities I might add).  How do I know this?  Simple, I was the one at SSRI that had to keep track and verify the MU Press distribution.
    Enough of this silly bantering.  Simply clarify your accusations and provide the references.  This would be most appreciated.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Reigle Stewart
     

    0
    #118466

    Mikel
    Member

    Some of the best minds at Motorola think there is no such thing as random causes, just assignable causes that are still lost in even greater noise. If you read Shewhart, you will find he thought the same thing.
    The term “entitlement” came into Motorola Automotive borrowed from our friends at Toyota. Toyota originally used the term in conjunction with processing time – a factor times value added time that was thought (empirically derived) to be the minimum time a process could be done in. It was used at Motorola to denote what was understood to be the best defect level a process could achieve. Interestingly enough is the fact that once “entitlement” was achieved,  it was promptly blown right past leading me to believe that Shewhart was right.
    The idea that Dr. Harry did anything more that “borrow” an idea and claim it as his own is the malarky.
     

    0
    #118467

    Mikel
    Member

    What looks foolish is a grown man with his head, figuratively speaking of course, up the behind of a person who has abused everyone that ever helped him.

    0
    #118468

    Mikel
    Member

    Dr. Harry also had absolutley no influence on the Automotive or Comm Sectors of Motorola. In fact he had very little influence beyond 50′ of his office. He did however spin a good yarn and manage upward, claiming credit for work of others.

    0
    #118482

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    In the context of what we’re discussing; your statement is misleading!

    You’re implying that Dr. Harry’s version of Six Sigma was used in Motorola’s waferfabs when they became so successful in the mid- 80s. Now a reasonable man can conclude this is not the case – irrepective of what Bob Galvin, or others, might claim …
    Contemporaneous information from that period of time does not support your assertion. For example: “World Class Quality” by Keki Boti et al, makes no mention of Dr. Harry’s contributions, nor to my knowledge does any textbook by Mario Perez-Wilson, or indeed do any of the numerous articles published by Motorola engineers in Semiconducutor International and Solid-State Technology. This seems very odd indeed!
     
    Even as late as 1989 people around Moto were still using the terms Cp and Cpk: so where did the term Six Sigma come from – why is it not 4.5 sigma? I’ll tell you where 6 sigma came from … it is based on having design tolerances of +/- 6 sigma. This was important message at that time because designers were only using +/- 3 sigma.
     
    Furthermore, Motorola training were still using  Planned Experimentation and Advanced Diagnostic Tools in their training classes as late as 1989!!!! This work was based on Shainin’s lectures – and even included some of the same examples and data! (Not that I’m saying that these were the only ‘techniques,’ in fact there were many including Taguchi Methods. But the truth is you like to dismiss all these other ‘competitors’ as irrelevant – perhaps you’re trying to create a myth!
     
    Accordingly, my ‘charge,’ as you put it, is that Dr.Harry only documented what he believed Motorola’s Six Sigma process should be and not what was actually practiced. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that so many companies in the West are still struggling with low rolled first time yields, and low throughput, and might explain why so many manufacturing companies are relocating to the Far East!
     
    Someone changed the process and made it inflexible and has stunted the application of statistics and robust design, as described in the article – “Six Sigma Friend or Foe” by Andy Neely et al.
     
    Regards,
    Andy
     
     
     

    0
    #118486

    Finance Jock
    Participant

    I can’t believe Motorola created Six Sigma alone.  Who were the consultants who Motorola develop Six Sigma.  I heard the Juran institute claims to have been at the table or are their claims “marketing fluff”

    0
    #118493

    Mikel
    Member

    The video tape series “Juran on Quality Improvment” was in use in places. That ran its course by 1982 or so. Some guy in Motorola’s Government Electronics gave Mikel a copy of Juran’s Managerial Breakthrough in 1983. You will find that the BB training concept closely follow Juaran’s two journeys.
    Dorian Shainin actually had more attention with his ADT (Advanced Diagnostic Techniques). That ran it’s course by 1983.
    Many went to see and read Deming. Most still do. Some fools actually read everything Deming and Shewhart ever wrote.
    Goldralt, Schoenberger, Shingo, Ohno, Taguchi, and Peters/Waterman were also widely read.
    A few went back to ASQC (now ASQ) and read their libraries of publications all the way back to 1947. Some great things are there.
    Ed Heard made a hugh impact with Cycle Time Reduction in about 1984.
    So yea, a few influences.
    I know of no where that considers that the esteemed Dr. Mikel ever made an impact to what was going on.

    0
    #118496

    Mikel
    Member

    You forgot the part of the esteemed Dr. being sent home a little over a year later.
    Oh yea don’t forget

    0
    #118501

    Savage
    Participant

    “Many went to see and read Deming. Most still do. Some fools actually read everything Deming and Shewhart ever wrote.”
    This sentence confuses me.  Up until the moment of reading it i’ve never heard Demings name used in any reference that wasnt good.  I’m new to this and still trying to learn the sublte intricacies of who to listen to and who to believe.  Could you please explain what you mean by this statement for my benefit?  I would appreciate it. 
    Matt

    0
    #118502

    Baker
    Participant

    Reigle, Andy, & Stan:
    One might take the time here and point out that in all of this “heated debate”, poor Tony remains hanging in the balance….yet to receive any substantial answers to his question.
    Instead of spending all this time arguing trival points of history that cannot be changed, why doesn’t someone apply themselves and help Tony….he can still change the tasks in front of him.
    This public forum will become virtually useless if no one can take the time to focus on the original question at hand. 
    My advice is that someone apply all this vast knowledge they are displaying to help people with that which lies in front of them…..not what remains 20 years behind us.

    0
    #118503

    Baker
    Participant

    Please see Post #68966.

    0
    #118504

    Baker
    Participant

    Please see Post #68966.

    0
    #118507

    Darth
    Participant

    All,
        How can we get our process entitlement?
    Tks!
    Tony
    Here is the original post.  Tony, what do you mean by process entitlement?  The traditional definition has been “the best you are going to get with what you have” and is usually used within the context of deciding between using DMAIC and DFSS to move the process forward.  If that is what you are asking, it is akin to asking “how do I cure world hunger?”  Feed all the hungry people is the answer.  So, please define what you meant by your question and possibly we can provide more succinct help as Jason has suggested rather than a history lesson.

    0
    #118508

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy, I do appreciate and respect your recollection of
    things. We all have recollections and meaningful
    memories (as flawed as they may be). We all see things
    differently in retrospect. However, one thing that does not
    falter over time is the artifacts (documents). I do not
    dismiss the contributions of others, because they too have
    provided meaning. But the bottom line is simple and
    verifiable, Dr. Harry won out at Motorola and got the top
    management team to support for his version of Six Sigma.
    Dr. Harry and Mr. Schroeder then took Six Sigma to ABB
    and then to Allied Signal, and then on to GE, and from
    there, the world. The artifacts are clear. Dr. Harry was
    highlighted in Jack Welch’s autobiography and the “GE
    Way,” not any of the others you mention. A simple review
    of the literature explains why — Mr. Bill Smith and Dr.
    Harry were the primary pioneers of Six Sigma in the 80’s.
    Mr. Smith come up with the idea and Dr. Harry extended
    and exploited the idea.

    0
    #118509

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Tony, Darth is fully right about the general understanding
    of what process entitlement is. However, YOUR definition
    or MY defintion or ANYONE’s personal definition is not
    important. What is important are the core equations that
    describe process entitltement, how the data is collected to
    feed those equations, and how the resultant outcomes
    interpreted, how decisions are made on this basis, and
    the consequential actions that stem from those decisions.
    Do examine and study these equations, especially the
    concept of rational subgrouping. This exercise will
    provide you the desired insights. But as a starting point,
    go with what Darth has described.

    0
    #118510

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy, I find your recent statement most peculiar. In your
    recent post, you state “Accordingly, my ‘charge,’ as you
    put it, is that Dr.Harry only documented what he believed
    Motorola’s Six Sigma process should be and not what
    was actually practiced. Therefore, it is hardly surprising
    that so many companies in the West are still struggling
    with low rolled first time yields, and low throughput, and
    might explain why so many manufacturing companies are
    relocating to the Far East!” So now the ills and woes of
    Western manufacturing is Dr. Harry’s fault? You are really
    hanging out there on this one. Besides, I am still awaiting
    your specific citations and references. Thus far, you have
    provided nothing but recollections and opinions.

    0
    #118513

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    I have no argument with that … my point was that Dr. Harry’s contributions had no part to play in the success of Motorola’s waferfabs, as has already been mentioned by another poster. I tried to explain how we used process entitlement and saw no other way to distinguish it against the current version of Six Sigma, which is mainly based on his work at G.E., as you point. You took offense, but that was not my intention – it was only to desribe a different view.
    Let us now address process entitlement. You stated that it is the capability after all assignable causes have been removed. Well what happens if I re-design the process – more easily done in semiconductor technology that in mechanical assembly. Basically, the goal is to change the process set-point to achieve greater robustness.
    By robustness I mean selecting a larger value so that when I scale back the effect of noise will be a smaller proportion of the signal. How does this fit in with Dr. Harry’s notion of process entitlement!
    But here is a Six Sigma weakness (Dr. Harry’s version) as the article I I referenced points out! Yes, twenty year old history is relevant … because it would seem that a process of change is not for change, if you get my meaning!
    Well I go away now and write up some case studies for my Chinese friends! Good luck!
    Regards,
    Andy
     

    0
    #118514

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Andy, your perspective is well taken and appreciated.
    You ask what happens if one were to realize a new
    process set point — owing to a redesign, introduction of
    new technology, etc. Well, its pretty simple … you have a
    new level of entitltement. The entitlement concept and
    supporting equations still apply. They are merely applied
    in the context of a new set point! Regardless of set point,
    the ideas and math underpinning “actual” and “potential”
    capability are still at hand. Its always great to realize the
    benefits associated with robust design — whenever and
    wherever possible. I wish you the best with your case
    studies and may good times prevail.

    0
    #118515

    Mikel
    Member

    all of Deming’s stuff is good. It is sloooooow reading, some slower than others. Try his publication of Shewhart’s lectures from the 1930’s for a good example.

    0
    #118516

    Mikel
    Member

    What entitlement are you interested in – time or defects?

    0
    #118517

    Mikel
    Member

    Yea, Jack and Bob Galvin both mentioned Mikel, but not in any meaningful way. If he did what you said, there would be more from Bob than that pathetic video you like to tout.
    You are right about Mikel’s ability to exploit, especially others work.
    Your Annonymous contribution on Velocity is also a pathetic way to try to sell Mikel’s latest exploits.

    0
    #118520

    Terry
    Member

    Reigle,
    You state in the same breath: “I do not dismiss the contributions of others, because they too have provided meaning. But the bottom line is simple and verifiable, Dr. Harry won out at Motorola and got the top management team to support for his version of Six Sigma.”
    Are you Dr. Harry or Reigle?
    Why do you continue (you vanished for a while but are now back trying to save the reputation of Dr. Harry single-handedly) to state that Dr. Harry did this all by himself. It would be much more endearing to readers if you were to state how many people contributed to the Six Sigma development at Motorola. Dr. Harry is not an island and did not single-handedly create Six Sigma, right?
    Terry

    0
    #118526

    Six Sigma Tom
    Member

    I have a problem with the idea of “random causes.” There really isn’t any such thing. There only two types of causes: those we know about and those we don’t. Shewhart taught that it was difficult, and in his day usually not economical, to identify causes of variation in a given Y when the pattern of variation in the Y looked random. However, we’ve since learned that “not economical” is a relative concept. In fact, Six Sigma itself became popular because it often WAS economical to hunt down and eliminate causes of variation that looked random on a control chart, but still caused too much trouble and cost.

    0
    #118530

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Terry:
    You are absolutely correct.  Dr. Harry did not do anything single-handedly, no more than a CEO of a company does it all.  Over the years, many people have contributed to the furthering of Six Sigma.  This is evidenced by the numerous books and articles on the topic.
    However, it is undeniable that he was a pioneer in the field of Six Sigma.  For example, the first published work on Six Sigma was authored by Dr. Harry in the mid 80’s.  But he did not create the concept of Six Sigma (as discussed in this publication).  Mr. Bill Smith created the concept.  At that period in time, Six Sigma was merely a statistical target with virtually no direction, just a shadowy vision.  Mr. Smith and Dr. Harry collaborated over several years to revise and extend the idea of Six Sigma (including those years he and I spent at SSRI).  Within many magazine interviews of Dr. Harry, he has acknowledged the work of others.
    As a matter of verifiable fact, Dr. Harry has noted the contributions of many such individuals; either in the foreward to his books, as a co-author, or within the content of those publications.  This is a matter of verifiable fact.  For example, his original instructional materials were dedicated to Mr. Bill Smith.  As yet another example, his best-selling book spells out the contribution of several key individuals.
    You ask how many people have contributed to the Six Sigma development at Motorola.  Well, why don’t you review the corporate documents from that era of developement?  Why, at that point in time, did these mysterious individuals you refer to not publish their thinking on the subject (internally or externally)?  Why are there no other publications on the subject from that period of time? 
    Many of the answers to such questions are available at Dr. Harry’s biographical web-site (key documents for all to review).  These documents specify many different people, often by name, job title, and location.  But again, this is just one individual’s perspective, but that perspective is drawn from documents and other such artifacts, not memory and opinion.
    In answer to your other question, it should be obvious why I vanish from time to time.  Like you, I have a job and other responsibilities.  However, when possible, I come to this forum, contribute my two cents, state my beliefs, render some facts, and weather false statements and endure poor memories.  On the other side, I also gleem some really good information that I find valuable in the practice of Six Sigma.
    Best of Regards
    Reigle Stewart 

    0
    #118531

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Six Sigma Tom:
    I would have to agree.  The idea of a “random cause” is merely a label we attach to a miniscule assignable cause that our current array of analytical tools can not effectively or efficiently discern.  In this sense, random causes can not be statistically separated for independent analysis (in a practical way).
    Reigle Stewart

    0
    #118533

    Six Sigma Tom
    Member

    Reigle:DOE is fully capable of doing this. We can even perform retrospective data mining to simulate DOE, which sometimes highlights interesting potential sources of variability that can be examined with DOEs.So, I don’t think it’s an issue of our analytical tools not being able to resolve the variation due to a particular unknown cause (the term I prefer to random cause.) I think it’s more the mindset that “random causes don’t matter” which prevents us from seeing the opportunities.Tom

    0
    #118534

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Tom, your perspective is most interesting and has high appeal. RS.

    0
    #118560

    Mikel
    Member

    Hopefully you find work again real soon. Sooner would be better than later.

    0
    #118576

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Reigle,
    I have some concerns about your support for the definition of process entitlement. It seems about as nebulous as a phantom shift :-)
    How do you know if you have a potential entitlement improvement  – new set-point – from a Shewhart Chart? There is no way of knowing. The only way to find out is the ‘characterise’ the process.
    Characterisation of processes formed an important part of process improvement both in Phenoex and in Austin. It is only after finding non-linearity that a new set-point can be chosen, then you need to find a signal factor (I prefer scaling factor) to bring the process back to target. How can this potential be known a priori?
    I also want to raise the issue of ‘control charts.’ As you know, Deming stated that the pupose of control charts was to find sources of variation – not to control processes per se. Once of the reasons for this is that the ‘normal model’ of a real process is unreliable. Now this may be a surprise to a quality engineer, but not to a process engineer. (I’m assuming the process is not multi-normal as on a web or mold, and the condition of rational subgroups is satisfied.)
    It is not suprising when you consider what happens to a normal distribution when the distribution is convoluted with a measurement variation ( a member of this forum has the derived relationship – and the effect is to ‘flatten’ the distribution slightly. Therefore, in-control or out-of control is only a guideline.
    In conclusion, I should like to suggest that the waferfab definition, or the automotive definition (Stan’s post) is a more useful definition of entitlement than what you’re supporting.
    I should like to make one more point – although quality engineers see all defects are random, process engineers on the other hand are aware that some defects are correlated ( non-random) and some are random The random defects follow a Poisson distribution, while the others do not.
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)

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