iSixSigma

Fraud

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 316 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45222

    Theo
    Member

    Everyone knows that six sigma contains a great deal of nonsense.  However, some statements cross the line between silliness and fraud. Such fraudulent statements are intended to win business by deceiving the public.  One statement that I feel is clearly in the category of fraud is:” Running a business with a Cp of 1.33 will lose 15-20% of sales “Any comments ?

    0
    #146993

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    It is  true  and  based  on  statistical calculation.Nowadays  everybody is  trying  to  attack SS,just  to  prepare  for  the  new  business  wafe:Lean SS or  TOC…etc.The  Money  machine  is  working  again.Just  for  the  last10-15 years  great  efforts  has  been  takeen  to  impress us on  the  great  advantages  of applying  SS:Distributing  real  practical casestudies from Motorola,GE…etc.As I  have  ALWAYS  expected a  new  baby is  coming  to  live and  we  should  all focus  on  him.No….We  should  all  go  back  then  to  TQM??

    0
    #146996

    Pipkin
    Participant

    It is true ? You mean ” Running a business with a Cp of 1.33 will lose 15-20% of sales ” is true ?  You have got to be kidding !!!!
    Please do show us your “statistical calculation” , so that we can all have a good laugh.

    0
    #146999

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    I willn’t   show  you the  Calculation because I  don’t  want  you  to  have  a  good  Laugh??

    0
    #147001

    Correction
    Participant

    Marlon,
    I don’t know for how long you’ve been around in Six Sigma. But the 1.3 CP -> 15 -20% lost sales was one of the first slides ever produced by a competitor of the Six Sigma Academy some time around 1995 … I think we can live without digging back into historical calculations by some consultanting firm that has had to reinvent itself 3 times since then. Cheers.

    0
    #147003

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Theo,
    That number was published in a chart in The Journal for Qulaity and Participation, Strategy and Planning.
    Good Luck

    0
    #147005

    D K
    Participant

    I’ve found a reference to a paper in Quality Progress by Mikel Harry.  I don’t have a memebership so I can’t download it.
    The fact that no one wants to discuss it does make it look like fraud !!!

    0
    #147006

    Correction
    Participant

    Theo: “The Journal of Quality and Participation” is a non-peer reviewed bulletin board (published by the ASQ, sic), where anybody with the ability to write a properly formatted sentence can publicly digest any badly thought-through “brainstorm”.
    Mike, you really don’t want us to take this kind of garbage seriously. I hope you’re pulling your sometimes heavily disguised dark humor on us :-).

    0
    #147008

    Correction
    Participant

    DK,
    If you post the specifics of the issue, I’ll pull it from one of my University databases. Sometimes it’s quite amusing to read a comic strip such as “Quality Progress” or “The Journal of Quality and Participation” … even though even the largest US Universities don’t even carry “The Journal of Quality and Participation”. So don’t waste your money, and definitely don’t take to seriously what’s written in these bobo comic books :-).

    0
    #147009

    D K
    Participant

    Correction,
    Fantastic … lets out this con man.  The reference I have is:
    Quality Progress, May 1998,  Six Sigma paper: “A Breakthrough Strategy for Profitability”,  Table 1. Practical Impact of Process Capability
    Sounds like a great strategy for profit alright – Harrys profit !!! …  and at the expense of American industry !!!

    0
    #147012

    Correction
    Participant

    DK/Theo,
    Here is the best example of the theoretical and empirical “depth” that is being published as six sigma in non-peer reviewed trade “journals” such as Quality Progress and associated publications. ASQ and the utter lack of academic integrity of its cheap publications makes it possible!
    In the article from May 1998 Harris “supports” the claim of a relationship between sigma and sales (in terms of cost of quality, however he measured that) as follows:
    “For a better understanding of this idea, Table 1 presents various levels of sigma capability and the implications of each level. Of course, this table would be applicable to any product, process, transaction, or service”. (He uses fictional data to support a fictional claim to make us better understand the esoteric depth of his imganiations … this strategy is breathtaking!). 
    The table then shows the sigma score, the defects p.m and the % sales as follows (no empirical support, no study cited … utter lack of academic integrity! … there is an additional colums that shows the defects associated with the sigma level, but this is irrelevant for the argument, you can look it up in any of the tables that are based on empirical data that either were never gathered and/or never published)
    6 sigma = 10% of sales (cost of poor quality, sic)
    5 sigma = 10 – 15%
    4 sigma = 15 – 20%
    3 sigma = 20 – 30%
    2 sigma = 30 – 40% (non-competitive)
    Also, in regards to his infamous 1.5 shift this is what he writes and cites (not one citation … so believe it or not). The brackets are added by Harris:
    (This degradation in the short-term performance of the process is largely due to the adverse effect of long-term influences such as tool wear, material change, and machine setup, just to mention a few (how does that relate to service industries????). It is these types of factors that tend to upset process centering over many cycles of manufacturing. In fact, research has shown that a typical process is likely to deviate from its natural centering condition by approximately 1.5 standard deviations at any given moment in time. With this principle in hand, one can make a rational estimate of the long-term process capability with knowledge of only the short-term performance. For example, if the capability of a CTQ characteristic is +6.Ou in the short term, the long-term capability may be approximated as 6.0Q – 1.Sa = 4.5[sigma], or 3.4 ppm in terms of a defect rate.)
    Harris cites the following articles to support his claims (none of the citations is related to the two critical claims that he makes: relationship between sigma and COQ in terms of sales and sigma shift):

    [Reference]

    References

    1. Six sigma is a federally registered trademark of Motorola. 2. The terms Breakthrough Strategy, Champion, Master Black

    [Reference]

    Belt, Black Belt, and Green Belt are federally registered trademarks of Sigma Consultants, L.L.C., d/b/a Six Sigma Academy.

    3. The Globe and Mail Report on Business Magazines, “The Six Sigma Ensigns,” October 1997, p. 62.

    4. Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter, Discover & Co., company update, June 6, 1996.

    5. “The Six Sigma Ensigns,” p. 64.
    Nothing more need be said!

    0
    #147014

    Blanco
    Participant

    I keep seeing references to lathe tool wear. What kind of lathes do these guys use – ours has an end stop, so it’s impossible to take off too much. Do they mean the time taken to cut to the edge stop?
    I’m very confused!
    Blanco

    0
    #147015

    mand
    Member

    Who is the author, Harris ? Is he an employees of the Six Sigma Academy or some other consultancy ?

    0
    #147016

    Correction
    Participant

    It’s “M. Harris, PhD” … and that Phd is prominently displayed on every piece that he ever wrote, even on his garbage can …

    0
    #147017

    D K
    Participant

    Interesting.  I’ve done a web search but I can’t find any reference to an “M. Harris, PhD” in relation to six sigma.  I wonder if “M.H.” is really Mikel Harry, PhD ?
    That would certainly fit the pattern of this con man  !

    0
    #147018

    Correction
    Participant

    D.K.
    No, it’s him. However, he has never published in any academic journal of any standing. In his1997 “The Vision of Six Sigma: A Roadmap for Breakthrough” Michael J. Harry, PhD. introduces himself in his shy and unassuming manner as follows: 
    “Dr. Harry has over 50 major technical publications to his credit. His work has appeared in such journals as IEEE (see advertisement below, it’s hilarious), Micro and Circuit World (Is not in circulation), and Journal of Curcuit Technology (Is not in circulation under this name). … For outstanding technical contribution to industry, he received the President’s Award from IPC at the 1990 Annual Conference (see the precious announcement below). Dr. Harry was inducted into the “Who’s Who” Registry of Global Business Leaders and was the subject of a feature article in “Personal Success” magazine (look up the site, it even advertises that it is cheap).
    IEEE magazine is advertised as follows:
    This is the IEE’s flagship magazine, published monthly, aimed at professional engineers. IEE Review combines features, analysis, news, innovation announcements with individually tailored career advice and IEE Review Careers. The coverage is wide, including electronics, electrical and power engineering, communications and IT. The traditional assets of letters, reviews and reader feedback are supplemented by several new opinion columns from a number of high-profile contributors, writing on a variety of matters from technology and management to business themes. (I guess to this day Harry cannot differentiate between opinion and fact!)
    The picture of the back cover is just “priceless”. I can’t reproduce it, but if you ever get a chance, please look at it :-).
    The following announcement from IPC about the President’s Award is just precious:
    Give someone special more than a hearty handshake. Show them that their contribution deserves special recognition by nominating them for an IPC award to be presented at IPC Printed Circuits Expo®, APEX® and the Designers Summit, the week of February 19, 2007. Nominations will be accepted through December 18, 2006.  Please submit directly to [email protected].
    The following is most revealing about his strategy to avoid the scrutiny of academic publications: “Supporting this series and furthering the power of quality, he published a unified set of articles in Quality Progress entitled New Frontiers”. That’s where his intellectual garbage became recycled into mainstream thought, which is now impossible to undo because quality professionals truly believe that this publication has any merit other than being unjustified op-ed pieces.
    P.S. I have been trying to track down Harry’s dissertation. He announces every little piece of professional “success”, but is suspiciously silent about the school that he went to and the aca demic work that goes with it. … or was it a PhD for lifetime accomplishment. In any case, the man made a big splash and a lot of money. But the substance reduces to a “unified set of articles” published in Quality Progress. Cheers.

    0
    #147020

    D K
    Participant

    Very interesting.  I assume he uses “Michael” as well as “Mikel”. 
    It’s also interesting that even his web site doesn’t mention where he got his PhD … maybe he found it in a corn flakes packet ?
    I also wonder what a PhD was doing working as an “Infantry Commander in the United States Marine Corps.” as his web site mentions ?  He is fat enough to have made a good target.

    0
    #147021

    Correction
    Participant

    DK,
    You’ll get a kick out of our genius’ dissertation topic. No wonder he never made it in academia as an “engineer”:

    Title:
    Interactive instructional television system awareness within an engineering population /

    Author(s):
    Harry, Mikel J. 

    Year:
    1984

    Description:
    xiii, 244 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

    Language:
    English

    SUBJECT(S)

    Descriptor:
    Engineering — Study and teaching (Continuing education) — Arizona — Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Employees, Training of — Arizona — Phoenix Metropolitan Area. 

    Named Corp:
    Arizona State University. Interactive Instructional Television Program. Motorola, inc. Government Electronics Group. 

    Note(s):
    Vita./ Includes bibliographical references (leaves [144]-150)./ Dissertation: Thesis (Ph. D.)–Arizona State University, 1984.

    Responsibility:
    by Mikel J. Harry.

    Material Type:
    Thesis/dissertation (deg); Manuscript (mss)

    Document Type:
    Book; Archival Material

    Entry:
    19851115

    Update:
    20041201

    Accession No:
    OCLC: 12798106

    Database:
    WorldCatDissertations

    0
    #147022

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Theo,
    The question was “where did it come from?” Thar is the siurce I am aware of.

    0
    #147023

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    How about we leave the Marine Corps issue out of this. They are independent topics and people who wear or have worn that uniform have earned the right to do so.

    0
    #147025

    D K
    Participant

    Why ? Was he as much a disgrace to the Corps as he is to quality ?

    0
    #147026

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    It is a level of disrespect that is irrelevant and unneccessary.
    If you disgrace the uniform the Corps deals with it immediately. He carries an honorable discharge so the Corps was satisfied with his service. That should be the end of it.

    0
    #147027

    D K
    Participant

    You seem to know a lot about him.  Perhaps you can explain the crap in his article ?  This is not the sort of rubbish that one would expect from a PhD.

    0
    #147028

    Correction
    Participant

    Mike/DK,
    (1) Mikel Harry was at best mediocre academically (a dissertation on teaching awareness in engineering at a University of the status of Arizona can only be explained by the fact that he could get no scholar of any reputation to chair his dissertation).
    (2) He avoids the ultimate acid test of his “theories”: empirical evidence. Rather than defending his theories, he publishes his results in business books and trade journals. He avoids any true engagement by hiding behind these trade journals rather than living up to the minimal standards of scientific inquiry: review of his data and reproducibility by his peers. His claim of the 1.5 shift is therefore unsubstantiated by evidence, and other claims cannot be taken seriously based on lack of empirical evidence.
    (3) He was successful as a consultant and businessman (However with a high level of lack of integrity (to say the least) in dealing with those who looked through his charade.
    In summary, he will go down in history as a successful consultant, but utter lacks the qualities and accomplishments that would put him in even a remote distance to the likes of Shewart or Deming. What is truly sad about the story is that the ASQ has been acting as such a strong enabler of this extremely dubious individual.
    I will not pass any judgment on his merits in the armed forces as this is truly a different story altogether, and anybody who has ever served in the army or been in combat would never go down that road.
    I thank Theo, DK and their nemeses for making me look more closely at the sad and untold story of M.J. Harry, PhD. Sometimes, what someone avoids to say is more revealing than that what he repeats and shouts out to the world over and over again. Maybe some members on this site will also look at the ASQ and its sad political agenda in a somewhat different light after realizing to what degree it has enabled Harry to become the sad clown that he is. And the fools that they are for so vehemently believing in the 1.5 shift. Regards.
     
     

    0
    #147029

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I have known Mike for 23 years so Yes I know something about him.
    If you want his article explained pick up the phone and call him.

    0
    #147030

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    “I will not pass any judgment on his merits in the armed forces as this is truly a different story altogether, and anybody who has ever served in the army or been in combat would never go down that road.”
    My point exactly.Thank you for that.
    My position on some of your other points were posted over the last 4 years so I don’t see any reason to rehash those.
    Regards

    0
    #147031

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    I have been following this thread with interest. I could see that people are scrutinizing (I hope I spelled correctly), Mikel’s credentials. I believe his credentials to a degree because he worked at Motorola, and Army. Those records must be true. The question of his integrity and credentials is a personal thing, and maybe, someone who is his superior should look into it. I know I am not qualified.
    My reason for this response is about incorrectly giving credit for 1.5 Sigma shift to Mikel. This was actually Bill Smith’s idea about establishing the 1.5 Sigma shift, which was not based on a lot of data, instead based on a set of assumptions made about the control chart theory. I do not think Bill spent years looking into it. It was a simple empirical decision he made to create the model, and it made sense. As to fine tuninig and academic scrutiny of 1.5 Sigma shift, one can do so today due to availability of more computing power. In good old days, due to lack of computing power, some of the assumptions were made for ease of calculations, even before Bill Smith.
    Praveen

    0
    #147032

    Correction
    Participant

    Praveen,
    That it was an oversimplistic decision based on a cursory review of data at one company, I agree. Yes, this is called a case study (empirical would inflate its merits). That it made sense for Motorolla, I don’t doubt for a moment, but ease of computation in 1986/87 … that is barely an excuse: Even Atari had powerful statistical programs with a graphic interface. DPMO and the six sigma measurement is based on sloppy “research” and it totally lacks academic integrity by a PhD to generalize from its original “base of evidence”. It’s not Harry’s personal integrity that I question (I don’t know him, I find his pictures rather repulsive, but he’s entitled to his cowboy look). It’s his academic integrity that I question and the integrity of the publication houses such as ASQ that enabled it. This was a money-making machine that knew what they were doing and they knew what they were hiding. And it was about money and prestige only: Not the integrity of a theory and the data. This lack of integrity is what is haunting six sigma now that it is finally being questioned on a fundamental basis. And it has no empirical fallback position other than its own myth and mythology! It has finally caught up with its own myth of origin. And Harry’s latest attempts to revive his little brain child are testimony to the impasse it has reached … . The irony is that Harry has made all the money in the world. What he is fighting for now is his legacy. And ironically he will trip up over his own omissions and commissions. That is very different from the unquestionable integrity and intellectual rigor of Deming or Shewart :-). … put differently, the man will be known as the cover for “Success Story” a magazine that sells for $9.95 a month if you buy a 24 month subscription :-).

    0
    #147033

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    DK:
     
    Your recent posts are not only distasteful, they are outright disgraceful.  The men and women that have honorably and dutifully served the United States of America during wartime is the reason you are able to make such despicable comments (assuming you are a US citizen). 
     
    I have no doubt that you clearly understand this point, even when you made the postings.  Such statements can only come from someone that has been blinded by their apparent hatred; and lost all perspective. 
     
    Many fine young American men and women have (and still are) voluntarily stepping in harm’s way and, tragically, dying for YOU.  While you may professionally disagree and dislike someone or some group, you are way out of line bashing anyone that has served our great nation in time of war or peace.
     
    A grim reminder on the heel’s of Veteran’s Day.  Personally, I believe you should make a public apology on this site to all the veteran’s you likely offended.

    0
    #147034

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Mikel might have been a successful businessman/ consultant. However, he had not developed Six Sigma, or a similar accomplishment (to my limited knowledge of him). Thus, comparing him with Deming, Juran or Shewhart will not be fare to these great quality people. I know Bill Smith invented Six Sigma, and I worked with him during those years.
    Six Sigma was not designed to be what it has become today. It is all market driven. Thus, the market will decide what becomes of Six Sigma in future. I am not sure what Mikel has added to Six Sigma that needs to be checked for academic integrity. Maybe, I miss something.
    Is there something incorrectly stated or published about Six Sigma that one should be aware of?
    praveen

    0
    #147035

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I rarely read my own posts.
    “Thar is the siurce I am aware of.” is supposed to be “That is the source I am aware of.” Sorry for the spelling.

    0
    #147036

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Correction
    I’m  going  to take  the next SS-BB Certified Program (organized by VillanovaU.) .Based on  your  knowledge  and  experience ,do  you think  that I’m  wasting my  money in  that (paying  some  $3000)?I  believe  in  your  judgment.Wish  to receive  your  honest  reply  asap?
     

    0
    #147039

    Praveen,
    I agree with you –  who a person is, what they have done, is irrelavent to an argument.
    If Bill Smith came up with the 1.5 sigma shift, then he changed his mind sometime after 1987, because his concern in 1987 was the justification for setting tolerances to +/- 6 sigma, not +/- 4.5 sigma. (I’m betting one of Bill’s traits was to canvas the opinion of others  – unlike you know who.)
    Up until 1988 most people used Cp and Cpk. Therefore, someone changed their mind after 1987. I think I know why – someone confused Shainin control limits with Shewhart limits, which would allow a 1.5 sigma ‘drift’ – not shift!
    In other words, the nicely rounded 1.5 sigma is the result of a ‘cock-up.’ Up until 1990, I can assure you no one in Oakhill allowed for any kind of shift.
    I know becase I worked on some of the first ‘Six Sigma design projects’ in Austin with Kim Eckardt, who later was summarily fired from DSP by a well-known idiot when he prioroitzed the need for a robust design over completing the design within a space of an arbitrary year. After they brought in some French guy he managed to finish the design within a year, but it took four years to debug the circuit!
    Anyway, if you say Bill Smith raised the issue of a shift, I believe you because you should know, but it must have been after 1987.
    If you agree, then what are we to make of Bash Me Too’s claim to have an ‘internal’ report dated 1987 detailing a Six Sigma goal? Does he mean a Cpk goal?
    I also think it’s ironic how quick he was to dismiss someone else’s Motorola internal report, and yet none of their work has been properly published and subjected to a peer review? What a joke!
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #147041

    D K
    Participant

    “and it made sense. ” … to Bill Smith maybe but it is total nonsense to any thinking person.
    “As to fine tuninig and academic scrutiny of 1.5 Sigma shift, one can do so today due to availability of more computing power.”
    What on earth are you talking about !?  There is no such thing as a “1.5 shift” , even Harry acknowledges that.  How has this anything to do with computing power ?
    ” In good old days, due to lack of computing power, some of the assumptions were made for ease of calculations, even before Bill Smith” 
    What “assumptions” ?  Are you making this up as you go along ?  Are you a total idiot ?

    0
    #147045

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    Reigle,
    Mike Carnell made this point already. No need to get on a pompous soapbox.

    0
    #147046

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    DK
    I do understand it is very easy to criticize, than to propose some suggestions to do things better. As to the lack of computing power, etc. you may want to review Shewhart’s book and how he selected sample size for ease of calculations of x-bar, and s-charts. Sample size of 4 helps in calculating standard deviation, and sample sixe of 5 helps in calculating mean.
    Maybe, you can suggest something more constructive about the shift in the process mean. That would be great.
    prvn

    0
    #147047

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Why  is  everybody  in  this  forum against Mikel Harry?Is  it  due  to HN and  envy?Is  it  because  he  was  one  of  the  few  pioneers  in  SS?Is  it  because  he is  making  huge  amount  of  money?Is it  becausehe  is  creative and  unique?Just “out  of  corusity”  I  wish  to  know……..??? 

    0
    #147048

    Anonymous
    Participant

    Somebody who doesn’t know the difference between IEE and IEEE is not in a position to criticize!

    0
    #147051

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Correction
    Please  answer  my  questions  regarding  the  attitude  against  the  Dr.Mikel  Harry?Why  everbody  in  this  forum  hate  him????????

    0
    #147062

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    This was a good question you raised.  A little research on the internet will tell you why.  Here’s one I found.  Its an MIT study:
     
    Birkinshaw, J and Mol, M. MIT Sloan Management Review, “How Management Innovation Happens.” 
     
    This is a research study of the top management innovations over time, conducted by MIT Sloan School of Business.  This research called out Six Sigma as being one of the top 10 management innovations, giving credit to Bill Smith and Mikel Harry.  This study was not based on “opinions;” it was based on “facts” that were verified from independent sources.  Just read the article and you’ll see what I’m saying, it a great research report.
     
    Now put yourself in the shoes of some of the “characters” on this site.  Ever notice how they attempt to defame others!  While others are being globally recognized, they are slamming away on this discussion board.  This contrast really says a lot!  These “characters” or “bashers” as I call them, believe they should be the subject of studies like I just referenced.  Anyone that is the focus of a major MIT research study is no slouch.
     
    Its clear in my mind that a handful of jealous people have watched others climb the ladder while they sit on the ground.  Do you ever notice these guys criticize successful people that have made a lot of money!  Personal success is the backbone of this country, but when others achieve it, their peers start looking for ways to find fault.  Its called jealousy.  Its the kind of jealousy that turns a person “green” with envy and eventually consumes them with hatred.

    0
    #147068

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    Reigle,
    Mikel’s “fame” was a flash in the pan. He has done nothing but try to regain it for the past 5 -7 years. ASQ wised up, ASU failed, the black belt in a box is a failure, and now he is back to SSA. How long before that adventure fails as well?

    0
    #147072

    Correction
    Participant

    Marlon,
    I have been comparing programs and training the stuff for over 12 years. The Vilanova program is sound. But as always the real learning comes with projects. Having a good mentor is invaluable in Six Sigma. Good luck!

    0
    #147074

    Correctiion
    Participant

    Marlon,
    This is not about a personal hate of Harry. Harry has avoided a serious academic review of his claims for over15 years by publishing in non-peer review trade journals. Yet he wants to be taken as seriously as Deming or Shewart. Being successful at making money and promoting his concept is one thing. Putting a theory to a test and defending it against the likes of Wheeler is another. He passes muster on business acumen, but so far he has miserably failed as someone who should be taken seriously as a statistician. From the very beginning he was a vocational trainer (His dissertation topic started this professional path). But this is also where the limitations of Six Sigma are: A vocational training to improve business processes. Six Sigma professionals sometimes forget that this is where they come from and this is where their limitations are. As long as that is clear, there is no problem with Six Sigma. And by all means, let Six Sigma professionals make a lot of money for yourselves and for their companies.

    0
    #147075

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Bash Me Too
    Just Excellent.You  have  given  me  an  out-standing  explanation.
    Hope  others  would  read and  learn?

    0
    #147076

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Appreciate  your  reply

    0
    #147077

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    Just a guess, but Reigle and Marlon must be the same person.
    Who else would fall for such a simplistic explanation?

    0
    #147079

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    I’m  Marlon ,but  who  is  Reigle?

    0
    #147082

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    He is that guy traveling under the name of Bash Me Too. He has had several identities on here including pretending to be his teenage daughter.
    No matter what the name, it is clear he is enamoured with the mistique of Dr. Mikel, some would say infatuated.

    0
    #147084

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Your  colour is  becoming Greener than  before.Take  care??  

    0
    #147085

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Reigle,
    You make the assumption that it is envy. You are following the Harry tradition of no data and no facts. There is the alternate hypothesis that they understand Harry to be an imposter. Those people who heard him make reference to sitting around talking to Edwards, Joe and Genichi. Harry’s website that claims he is the father of Six Sigma when the Motorola website states clearly it was Bill Smith. The hoax he pulled with ASQ and that entire relationship. There is also the entire cowboy quality issue that went on with Schroeder and Harry while one was from Pennsylvania and the other from Indiana.
    You must be living in a fantasy world if you believe that this is jealousy. This is a pure lack of respect by Harry for his client base and his client base and colleagues for him.
    Does showing up late for a dinner in cowboy paraphernalia and telling a group that they were not important enough to speak to you sound familiar? Be careful there were close to ten people in that room. There is nobody that envys that behavior. Let’s have the Sloan people interview them and see what the visionary looks like then.

    0
    #147087

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Marlon Brando,
    It is fortunate that there is no color for ignorance. You would be glowing.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147088

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    Agreed.
    And then there are the question of how Schroeder was the cofounder of the Academy while he was the VP at AlliedSignal and gave SSA their first multimillion dollar contract.
    And who got money from Whirlpool when there was a clear noncompete signed with GE.

    0
    #147090

    lin
    Participant

    DK
    Do you know why Dr. Harry parted ways with ASU for six sigma training?
    Please be factual in your comments.

    0
    #147093

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Reigle Me Too,
    Let’s not forget who was the genius and visionary behind the complete debacle at Ford. It seems strange that so many people were trained and then the Academy was sold. It does seem like a going away party.
    Reigle likes to distance Harry and the forum but if I recall didn’t he have a private forum here. That did not last either.
    The column that was mentioned by Correction that Harry was supposed write monthly for Quality Progress did not last that long either, even without peer review. Perhaps when you do not actually understand what you have been selling it becomes more difficult to write as time progresses.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147098

    Raymond
    Participant

    Read the thread here.  It is because he has defrauded the public.  He has knowingly made false statements in order to convince companies to use his “services”. 
    Claiming that companies that are using good SPC techniques have “15-20% sales loss”, is an invention of Harry’s that can only be described as pure fraud.

    0
    #147099

    Theo
    Member

    Correction,
    Well done. Some great investigation and an excellent unveiling of Harry as a fraudster.  Do you know what the field was for his first degree ?  A Bachelor of Arts perhaps ?
    Could you post a copy of the article or email it please ?

    0
    #147100

    Mikel
    Member

    He is a degreed engineer from Ball State (he is from Ohio, not Indiana).
    Just like going after his military background – don’t assume more than what is in front of you

    0
    #147101

    Stephens
    Participant

    Theo, you might want to judge for yourself.  Go to http://www.mikeljharry.com.  After reading through this site I really must agree with Marlon Brando and Bash Me Too.  The posters are full of jealousy.

    0
    #147102

    Lebowski
    Participant

    My mistake. An Indiana suburb.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147103

    Stephens
    Participant

    Theo, as Mike Carnell suggested why don’t you just pick up the phone, call and ask him rather than rely on all the forum heresay.

    0
    #147104

    D K
    Participant

    Yes, I’m very jealous.  I’d love to be fat ugly idiot making millions out of pure crap.  If I did the same thing I’d have my butt sued off … although maybe the lawyers haven’t spotted him yet.  I’m sure they could make as much from him as he has conned from the public.

    0
    #147105

    Reigle Me Too
    Participant

    The only posters who may be jealous are those who do not know him.

    0
    #147106

    GB
    Participant

    I don’t really have a horse in this race, except to back up the sentiments of Mike Carnell above.  
    Please do not denegrate the armed services in an attempt to attack MH.   There was no need to attack him on those grounds.   His Honorable discharge is just that…Honorable.   As Mike Stated, the Services do a good job of policing their own in terms of integrity breaches.
    I too, am a former combat arms Officer and I sure as hell am not in the same shape i was in back then…not by a long-shot.
     
    This is not directed at Mike, but to the poster who chose to go down the “low road”.
     

    0
    #147114

    BB
    Participant

    “Maybe, you can suggest something more constructive about the shift in the process mean. “
    Aren’t you the nut case who claims “because of the 1.5 shift all processes are out of control 13-14% of the time ”  ?
    At least you don’t seem to be fraudulent, just stupid.

    0
    #147116

    Theo
    Member

    Andy,
    The 1.5 resulting from confusing Shainin control limits with Shewhart limits is an interesting thought.  The actual origin of 1.5 has never made sense to me. It’s obviously not an observation.  If it was, it would be seen as a special cause.  Once it was created, Harry and Reigle obviously saw it as the basis of a good money spinner (some may read “fraud” here) – hence their silly 3 attempts to prop it up – the stacks of discs; the Chi square; and 3 / SQRT (4).
    As you say, the origin must have been some sort of “cock-up” that became entrenched.  If it was the particular cock up you describe, it must have been back in the Motorola Cp=1 days.  The Shainin “green level” Pre Control Limit would then have been the spec limit minus 1.5 sigma. Of course, usually the Shainin limits would have been wider than this.
    It does very much sound a possibility though.  I wonder if there’s any way of investigating this further ?
     

    0
    #147117

    Correction
    Participant

    Theo,
    Wheeler wrote an article in the mid-1990s where he traces the idea of the 1.5 shift back to two articles published in the mid 1960s. At one point I looked into them, but did not keep copies of them. You can follow the author’s thought process by reviewing their literature list. These two articles are most likely the one’s that gave Smith the idea of reviewing the empirical validity of the shift at Motorolla. As I said before, unfortunately, this research has never been documented (I believe the original two texts were based on simulation data … but at my age, memory is not your best friend any more). I know that the article is somewhere available on this site. Maybe someone who remembers where it can be found can add the link. Like all of Wheeler’s work it is well written.

    0
    #147121

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Correction:
    How do you know about Bill Smith’s thinking?  How would you know what text’s Bill may or may not have used.  Did you work at Motorola during that period?  Will your memory serve to provide an answer to these simple questions? 
    On the one hand you talk about the importance of academic integrity in research, yet on the other hand you make gross speculation about another person’s thinking (that you don’t even know).  My, you’re an amazing person.  I believe the word “hypocrytical” comes to mind (and selective memory).
    After reviewing your recent posts, it’s apparent that you have misapplied the word “fraud.”  Perhaps the only fraud is you.  Sounds like you might be an old statistician that is trying to fit in.  You give credence to the old saying: “Misery loves company.”  Why not share some of your publications in well the “respected” journals?  Without a reply, one can only beieve you might be the true “fraud,” like so many others on this site.
    So go ahead and bash me around a little and make yourself feel like the “big man on campus.”

    0
    #147122

    Theo
    Member

    Craig, Mike,
    What is his phone number and email address ?

    0
    #147123

    mand
    Member

    I suggest that you check your own spelling before criticizing others’ ..
    I believe the word is hypocritical, not “hypocrytical” … or do you have “selective memory ” ?

    0
    #147124

    Correction
    Participant

    Bash Me Too,
    Your utter lack of manners and respect for minimal norms of social interaction and communication prohibit me from further engaging in an exchange with you. Your continuous disrespectful posts on this site over the past week or see is the type of behavior that is typically displayed in the gutters of our society. There, “Bashing” is the primary form of social interaction and conflict resolution. I, like many others on this site, look at your sad display by simply shrugging their shoulders.

    0
    #147125

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Theo,
    Just a guess but you might try Six Sigma Academy.
    Regards

    0
    #147126

    Pipkin
    Participant

    It sounds like some “Sick Sigma” guy.

    0
    #147127

    Theo
    Member

    Correction,
    The only paper I’m aware of by Wheeler on Six Sigma is “The Six Sigma Zone”.  As always, it is very well presented and as expected, he explains why six sigma is so much nonsense:
    http://www.spcpress.com/ink_pdfs/The%20Final%206%20Sigma%20Zone.pdf
    As with the “15-20% sales” thing, he draws attention to the fact that Harry references a “research study” that doesn’t exist … what I’d call more fraud.
    I can’t find anything by Wheeler on this site.

    0
    #147128

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Heebeegeebee,
    Looks like it was a busy day.
    I have been out for 33 years and I am sure not in the same shape I was in when I was in the Corps. Mike is abou the same age as I am so he has probably been out just about as long.
    I figured you went after the other guy.
    Regards

    0
    #147129

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Correction:
    I did mean “hypo” + “critcal” = hypocritical and you took the bait; validating your hypo-critical-ity. 
    Just as I suspected, you won’t come out from your academic robes and tell us what wonderful and highly impressive pieces of world-renowned research and professional contributions you have made to this lowly world. 
    You’re proven yourself to be just another one of the many bashers on this site, but you have managed to expose your hypocritical nature.  I too look at your “sad” display and simply shrug my shoulders as well.
    This is just a few more worthless words that can be added to the total pile of trash that is ever present on this increasingly worthless discussion forum.
    Well tell us what the “minimal norms” are and who defines them.  Lack of respect must not be one of them because this site’s moderators never seem to ban the idea of disrespect, at least until one of the site’s cronnies screams “uncle.”
    So keep on bash’in til the sun rises in China.

    0
    #147130

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Theo:
    If you can’t find his phone number under “contact info,” at the SSMI website, then you my friend are blind as a bat.
    Besides that, we all know you won’t call because you don’t have the bills for it.  Did I say “bills.”  My spelling is sooo bad.

    0
    #147131

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Corretion:
    Oh, there’s a true and blue business world hero: Dr. Wheeler.  I’ll bet he’s a real boardroom hit! He’s probably on the invitee list of every Wall Street dinner. 
    Perhaps he’s a great control chart guy, but just that, a control chart guy that nobody (other than statistical geeks) ever heard of.  Is this is your idea of an industry business leader?  You got to be kidding, right.  A statistician leading other statiticians is like the blind man guiding another blind man in the middle of the night with a flashlight that has no batteries.
    Yes, I’m sure he’s a world class statitician, but certainly no industry business leader.

    0
    #147133

    Theo,
    I think there are still some of Shainin’s vestigal organs inside Six Sigma. The argument seems to be .. “Well Shainin didn’t invent them anyway, so we can use them without mentioning him. While I have some sympathy for this argument, Shainin was the first to organise ‘his’ ‘techniques,’ and to market them with some success.
    With regards to the 1.5 sigma ‘shift,’ I believe the origin was when someone suggested combining Shainin Pre-control with our Multi-vari software.
    Mike Wolfe wrote the software and if you refer to page 150 of our 1987 article you’ll see two sets of limits denoted (USL / LSL), and (UPL / LPL) – upper and lower specification limits and upper and lower process limits.
    Since the multi-normal distribution shown in Fig. 6 falls within the ‘upper and lower process limit,’ the process comes close to achieving a Cpk = 1.33 (In this sense we’re using Shainin’s green/yellow boundardy as our +/3 sigma limits, but of course there is still a distance of 1.5 sigma to the specification limit.)
    Anyway, after we published our report, many people came to MOS 3 to see our new ‘Best in Class’ photo resist area, including Bill Smith and Dr. Harry. I’m not sure if Praveen came or not.
    According to Mark Hiatt, during a conversation they asked Mark why the ‘green zone’ encompassed all the process variation, to which Mark gave a ‘snappy answer,’ mentioning ‘to allow any drift of the mean.’
    As you point out UPL and LPL in Shainin’s pre-control scheme are set to +/- 1.5 sigma, and USL and LSL are set to +/- 3 sigma. While this implies a ‘univariate’ process might well drift by up to 1.5 sigma, a multi-normal process would not.
    Notwithstanding the default Shainin limits, after achieving this level of performance no self respecting process engineer would allow the process to drift beyond UPL and LPL. Later, we set UPL and LPL to conventional individual chart limits, also inlcuding two flags at the bottom of the chart indicating out-of-control situations for X-bar and R charts, one for the mean and one for ‘uniformity,’ and for Hotelling’s T-squared.
    I believe Mark’s snappy answer is the true ‘origin’ of the shift theory. Nothing but a misunderstanding. Later, I believe someone found a article about statistical tolerancing and tolerance stack-up, and tried to justify the shift on that basis.
    I never bothered to go the theory of the shift in any detail because we already had data to show a photo resist processes stable over long periods of time, and without adjustment. In fact, we were great believers in ‘fixed’ process conditions, to operate in what’s called the isofocal plane on the Bossung curve.
    Although I’ve focussed on photo processesing, we used the same approach in all process areas, including plasma etch, diffusion, II, device, design, etc. We also used featues of the TPS, as noted previously.
    Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #147134

    Mike,
    I didn’t know you had that background. Did you serve with Bill Walker?
    I was capped at Lympstone in 1969!!!
    Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #147135

    Theo
    Member

    Fantastic Andy !
    At last an explanation that is starting to make sense of all this nonsense. One thing that doesn’t quite fit though; Pre Control’s green zone is set at 50% of the spec limits.  This would give an allowable “shift” in the green zone of  +/- 1.995 , not +/- 1.5 at a Cp=1.33. 
    I don’t understand what you mean by “multi-normal distribution” and why this would have a bigger green zone ?  Do you have a link to the paper and the diagram please ?

    0
    #147136

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Andy,
    Born a Hollywood Marine, Radar training at 29 Stumps and the rest of my time at Beautiful Beaufort by the sea just 40 miles from Yemasee.
    1970-1973 Fortune smiled on me. I was trained on a new radar set that didn’t work well so I never ended up in Viet Nam.
    Regards

    0
    #147137

    Theo,
    For a Cp = 1, the USL correspond to +3 sigma limits. 50% of the USL = 1.5 sigma. Remember, our stated goal was to achieve a minimum of Cp = 1. This was how Mike set up the default limits in the software. Luckly we were able to desensitize the process and use scaling to reduce the variation to within the green zone. Thereafter, we used those limits to take corrective action. I’m not claiming we knew what we were doing! But it worked rather well :-)
    Now it may well be the case that Mark’s comment only added weight to a previoulsy held view – I don’t know. All I can do is relate my own observations as an ‘eye witness.’
    But my contention is supported by our scientifically published article, which was subjected to a peer review by Prof. Bohn at Havard University, among others.
    This work began in MOS 3 in 1984 and we published an internal report in 1986. As you know it takes time to obtain permission to publish and to organise an external peer review.
    Similar work had also been undertaken by Mario-Perez Wilson and others in Phoenix some years before. This is why there is an apparent discrepency between their take on Motorola’s Six Sigma history, and the explanation of others. (Mario’s position also seems to be supported by Keki Bhote.) Perhaps this is the source of all the animoscity?
    Regarding the multi-normal distribution, later, we improved the process control of the Multi-vari chart by controlling the extrema distributions. As you correctly point out, this meant abandoning the Shainin pre-control scheme, and including more advanced features, such as the use of a Hotelling’s T-squared flag under the Multi-vari chart.
    In 1988 Ford audited MOS 8 and told us we had the best process control in the Northern Hemisphere. This was largely due to the efforts of Mike Wolfe and a software engineer Kevin Kreitner.
    Andy

    0
    #147138

    Interesting ..
    Only top guys get to work on Radar in the REME …  I had to settle for telecomms :-)
    Cheers,
    Andy
     

    0
    #147142

    Theo
    Member

    Andy,
    Yes, the pieces seem to fit.  I assume the 1.5 screw up was followed by Bill Smith and his “brilliant” Cp=2 idea.  Then along comes Harry and mixes up the Cp=2, Pre Control’s green zone, Bender’s stacks of disks and voila, Six SigmaTM.  Later Harry realizes his mistakes but figures he can make lots of money out of it …
    I looked up Mario-Perez Wilson, who also claims to be the founder of SS.  I have no respect for a man who makes a ridiculous statement like this (from Quality Digest) : “The quality goal should not be zero defects, by default an impossibility and simply unreasonable. Rather, the organization should set a value, such as 0.002 parts-per-million defective (plus or minus six sigma), 3.4 parts-per-million defective (4.5 sigma shifted) or some other challenging but achievable value.”
    Have you ever used ANOM ?  It seems a more rigorous approach than Multi-vari charts.

    0
    #147168

    Mikel
    Member

    Theo,
    Can you help me understand what you find ridiculous about Mario’s statement? 

    0
    #147171

    Mikel
    Member

    If you go back to the original information called Six Sigma, there were two messages with the second following on the logic of the first. –
    1) We need processes robust enough that when they move they don’t bring us to our knees. (I have certainly put in my own words, but there was a discussion of having some room for movement without hurting the customer).
    2) The interpretation was we needed an inherent capability (Cp) of 2 and an achieved capability in the short term (Cpk) of 1.5. The assumption of the 1.5 shift is embedded in there.
    So just some assumptions of what robust meant and what kind of movement would be seen. Based on data – no way, but what we did know is the auto industry had moved from a requirement of a Cp of 1.33 to 1.67 and corresponding Cpk’s of 1.0 and 1.33 and the industry was still full of defects and line shut downs. There was a lot of lying about capability all thru the auto industry (still is BTW), but that was not talked about so they thought the ante still needed to be upped.
    There were many of us reading Taguchi at the same time and knew that the TPS folks thought that a Cpm (capability with respect to target) of 1.33 was adequate. Six Sigma has never implicitly said we were trying to achieve target and the way we still teach SPC (yes even Wheeler) reflects that.
    If we start to really understand the few things that are important and figure out logical targets, then teach people how to set up on target and stay on target, a lot of this nonsense will go away.

    0
    #147172

    Johnathan Swift
    Participant

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
    Johnathan Swift

    0
    #147173

    Mikel
    Member

    Reigle,
    I have no clue what that quote has to do with this discussion.

    0
    #147174

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Correction,
    Congratulations. You have pushed Reigle to the point where he is uncovering the true nature of the Mike Harry relationship. It requires complete adulation of Mike with Reigle as the high priestess. As long as you are compliant with the adulation requirement there is the cloak of being part of the gifted few blessed with the occasional gift of Mike’s gaze. Any departure immediately becomes hostile and should you push Mike into a corner you get the sum of squares conversation. That would be a high speed blast of jibberish with sum of squares thrown into each sentence to make it sound complicated when it actually means nothing. It is very similar to the Enron thing where they explained a flwed plan and if you exposed it they just dismissed you as not being intelligent enough to understand. If that does not work you are immediately exorsized from the group much as Reigle was in the past.
    You have challenged at the core, found it inadequate, held it up to the light for the world to see. Now the attack by Reigle becomes personal as Reigle takes on the basher personna that very thing he claimes to dispise. Why would he do this? Mike wants his flock of lemmings and Reigle aspires to be his lead lemming.  

    0
    #147175

    Lebowski
    Participant

    He is wrapping Mike in the martyr shroud. It is the Ken Lay tactic that says I am a genius so if you do not understand you are stupid.
    Reigle has tried to cover up the background that Correction has exposed. That did not work now he will try the Mike died for our sins and you do not appreciate it tactic.

    0
    #147176

    Lebowski
    Participant

    This was an interesting comment. Let’s ask Mike Harry what he thinks about Mike Harry. If he says he is a visionary business leader it must be true because Mike Harry said so.
    It actually looks more like Reigle finding a way to put Mike’s site address on iSixSigma so guys like Marlon Brando can say ooh, ahhh, that’s incredible. Why not this site draws close to a half million visitors per month. No wonder it is so important to the Harry cult to continually have Reigle on here trying to expunge all the skeletons from Mike’s well guarded closet that people like correction keep dragging out.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147177

    Jack Welch
    Participant

    “If there is a Six Sigma zealot, Harry’s the guy.”
    Jack Welch

    0
    #147178

    Lebowski
    Participant

    This is an old Reigle tactic. You have your facts and have laid them on the table. Since your facts appear to be well documented he will avoid answering anything you have said because it is documented and will turn on you. There is the challenge because you post under another name as if Reigle’s real name is Bash Me Too. 
    The challenge to what you have published which is does not make sense since you have only challenged Mike’s publications and made no claims of your own. Suppose you did have those publications and chose to list them that would defeat the purpose of the Correction name. Reigle was counting on that. It is very much like asking a anonymous caller who is is calling. The response is a foregone conclusion. It is ok because people like Marlon Brando will believe that this is motivated by something other than pretty good investigative reporting.
    Nice job again. You have achieved what is called a nondenial denial. Richard Nixon and his gang were experts at this.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147179

    Lebowski
    Participant

    The Pastor Ted Haggard was also a believed to be a religious zealot.
    There were probably a lot of quotable people that made that comment. 
    Lebowski

    0
    #147182

    Icarus
    Participant

    Theo,
    what have you started?
    Anyone can make money @ a 1.33.
    It’s alot of greed that pushes the 1.33 envelope.
    Rock on

    0
    #147183

    GB
    Participant

    Mike and Andy were signal pukes???
    ..heh heh
    (just kidding!)   I’m proud to call you both brothers in arms!
    ;-)

    0
    #147184

    Correction .. over here we’re Royal ‘signal pukes.’
    :-)

    0
    #147185

    Spudbowski
    Member

    And you don’t believe the man worthy of his monument – so your contribution is to piss on the monument?    Why don’t you eclipse and put into perspective his fame by doing more and becoming even more renowned by speaking your own version of truthful insights?    But then that’s pretty obvious, pissing on the monument is your extent of contribution, isn’t it?  
     
    I’m not a Dr. Harry fan, but at least he’s done something.   What have you done, other than read Wheeler et al.’s work?    And, of course, buzz up a forum of like minded neophytes and idiots. 
     
    Please if you are able, provide index and citations to your numerous peer reviewed technical journal contributions and/or texts and we’ll be very pleased to compare and contrast the volume and efficacy of your technical contribution to that of Dr. Harry.  And, again, I’m not a Dr. Harry fan, but at least he’s done something.  

    0
    #147186

    GB
    Participant

    Her majesty’s signal pukes…I like it!
    ;-)

    0
    #147191

    D K
    Participant

    Well, I’m not a fan of Charles Manson, but at least he’s done something.  So, he’s worthy of a monument too.  Why not monuments to all the crooks ?

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 316 total)

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