Fraud

One can never have enough friends, in this world!

This may be a news flash for you Joe but the Forum has monitors who determine what is and is not appropriate for this site. This is just a guess but I do believe that you are not one of them. The only control you have is to not access a post.
Basically you are a homophobic version of Reigle. You don’t see anyone trying to curtail your blatant display of bigotry.
Let’s assume we allowed you to set your personal morality as screening criteria. Then we matrix that criteria with Reigles criteria of Harry worship. Then add the various and sundry criteria of professionalism and whatever cry baby criteria that passes through the site. Once we allow that what happens to that freedom of speech that is casually mentioned in the Bill of Rights? It is by the way one of the foundational documents of the country you are so proud of. I guess the application of those documents are selective?
Lebowski

no need to apologize…I was just clrifying my intent…afraid you thought i was knocking you for real.

Harry’s “intellectual property ” !!!!????
Now that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one !

BTW and in all fairness, we’re interested in knowing who’s payroll you’re on, as well?

Thank You?

Harry’s significance is a fact:  “One cannot speak of Six Sigma without mention of Dr. Mikel Harry.” That’s already been stated on this forum. It is a given!
 
The real question, however, and the one you choose to avoid answering (by countering with seven additional questions instead), is:  “If Dr. Harry’s work is insignificant in your eyes (you personally) why do you focus on him so much?” In other words, what is your motivation or how do you gain by insulting, offending, and falsely wanting to spread hate about this individual? What’s in it for you? That was Marlon’s original inquiry!
 
The reason you have the privilege to criticize is precisely, because of individuals like Dr. Mikel Harry and other honored service members on this forum, that make it or have made it possible for us to do so. But you forget that criticism is easy. It is easy to criticize. There is an old saying that states: “Tell the world what you want to do, but first show it.” You’re telling this forum, but you have nothing to show!
 Instead, what do you do? You choose indirect means of communication to attack and defame a symbol of Six Sigma. You choose to gossip and speak about a professional behind his back or who is not present or privy to your conversation. What people do and how they choose to behave and/or act is a reflection on them. What you do is a reflection on you. You’re reflecting the very animosity you speak of.    

That was a WOW! Thanks. However, the loudness is an assumption on your part and your bet is speculation. You really don’t have anything to show do you? Have a nice day!

M.
If you follow the link closely you will realize that the original question was not about the “significance” of Dr. Harry. This statement is broad to the point of being both trivial and irrelevant: significant for what, or whom? It is totally irrelevant to the “quaestio” that brought up the “disputatio”.
The question posited is: What does it signify that Dr. Harry published his findings in trade journals such as Quality Progress, and that to this date no empirical evidence about the 1.5 shift and the translation table into a sigma score have been published in scientific articles? What is the scientific status of Harry’s original argument!
As you may remember, criticism comes from “kritein” (to differentiate). In this sense, the “critical question” put forward originally targets the difference between Harry’s scientific claim and the non-scientific evidence. This is a world 2 question in Popper’s sense that may result in answers in world 1 and world 3. So please be more precise in summarizing the arguments of the thread and in differentiating between the different layers of the argument. A good starting point would be to consult an old history book on the four steps of Scholastic dialectic: quaestio, videtur quod, sed contra and responsio. It has been the foundation of “critical argumentation” since the times of Aristotle and is to this day is still the foundation of intelligent argumentation.

Correction.
I stand in amazement – I am not worthy! :-)
By the way, what have Harry’s colleagues contributed? I can’t find much on their website.
I have to admit that at least Harry has done something and it has lasted quite awhile – even though its nearly all wrong.
How did this situation come about? Why haven’t the scientidic community sorted this out before now? After all they were quick enough to jump on Taguchi!
Some also jumped on Shainin, but I’ll only use one boot at a time :-)
Could it be Harry’s real contribution has been to enable other people to buy their supper – by making Six Sigma so popular?
Fair’s fair …

Congratulation for  the  insight and  the  excellent  wrapping-up/i

Since you’re on a Six Sigma website, biting the very hand that feeds your need for satisfaction by defaming others, the real amazement is:  What means enable your supper?

Matthew,
Read the start of this thread.  Harry, like all of us, made some mistakes. In the early days, his error was his “theoretical” derivation of 1.5 based on Evans work on stacks of disks.  He started to make lots of money based on his error.  The error later turned to fraud when he made statements about “15-20%” sales loss from well managed processes.  Fraud was also perpetrated as he continued to try to “prove” his 1.5 with his new chi square approach.

Thank you for your suggestion to re-read the thread. It helped confirm that much of the white-noise about Harry has been based on FEELINGS!
“One statement that I feel is clearly in the category of fraud is:”

MBB:
I think you might be wrong about this.  I believe you will find the “15-20%” sales loss was popularized in an AT&T Bell Labs report published long before six sigma.  As another poster (Praveen) pointed out, Harry did not introduce the 1.5 sigma shift, Bill Smith at Motorola did.  I went through the “Mysteries” book and found no such error.  You might be able to argue the assumptions, but not the proof itself.  Have you ever read “Evans” paper or are you just throwing back more of the bashing you’ve seen posted?  Somehow its difficult to imagine that Jack Welch at GE and the other companies adopted six sigma because Harry presented the “proof” of a shift!!  Is this to say they would have rejected six sigma if they knew the shift was somehow in error?  Hardly think so.

Bash Me Too,
Could you make up your mind as to whether you want to base your arguments on “knowledge”, “feeling”, “belief” or “imagination”? In your last post you accuse BB of arguing from “feelings”. In this post you argue based on “belief” and “imagination” (see below). If you expect others to take you seriously it would be quite helpful if you abide by your own standards and rules! Your double standards are becoming quite old and boring.
Citations:
“I believe you will find the “15-20%” sales loss was popularized in an AT&T Bell Labs report published long before six sigma”.
“Somehow its difficult to imagine … “

Your post needs no further reply … Thanks for giving me a hearty laugh … Enjoy the rest of your day.

MBB:
Good night, its time for bed.

Marlon,
What is your preferred justification for the 1.5 ?  That is, assuming you do believe this nonsense and are not just another con man.
Which one :

Harry’s first attempt based on a “shift” ?
Harry’s second attempt based on a “correction” ?
Reigle’s pathetic attempt with his “dynamic” babble ?
Or something new perhaps ?
Stan, Andy, Correction and lots of others are probably yawning but it’s time these 6S frauds were buried.

MBB:
Seems to me that Harry’s explaination of the shift that is found on this website is pretty good.
https://www.isixsigma.com/forum/ask_dr_harry.asp?ToDo=view&questId=18&catId=6

This is Harry’s second attempt at his 1.5.  He is as thin on explanation as ever but this is his new 2003 Chi square approach. He throws away the old “shift” because that really didn’t make sense. 
Now before I go on, are you sure this is what you want to hang your hat on ?  I mean, you’re not going to change your mind and claim it’s due to Bill Smith or some “study” or some nonsense from Reigle ?

Lets not confuse this issue to much.Harry was involved with Six Sigma at Motorola as were alot of people. But it really did not gain a lot of popularity beyond Motorola. Harry and some of the same people from Motorola were also associated with it at Allied Signal and General Electric. It never really became the center of attention that it currently is until Jack Welch got involved.
So who created the feast?
Harry never sold Bossidy as we have seen posted here by Stan. Bossidy sold Welch not Harry. Figure it out. Check out the GE website and read the annual reports and decide if you believe Harry or anyone else can train that many people in one year. It is the typical Harry taking credit for other peoples work.
Lebowski

That post stuck with you. That is great because that means there is the possibility I have become significant for you.
We have seen Praveen say that the 1.5 shift was Bill Smith’s idea and since he seems to still have a relationship with Mrs. Smith I will assume that to be true.
The tools existed before Six Sigma. Maybe you could point out which tool Harry developed. One that someone actually uses and at the same time you might explain why GR&R is missing from the while and green book.
That leaves the explanation of the shift which appears to shift itself. I do believe that is his contribution and amazingly enough it is the part that people seem to snicker about.
Lebowski

Lebowski,
It is good to see you agree with Bash Me Too about Bill Smith creating the 1.5 shift idea.  You ask what things Dr. Harry added to six sigma as we know it today.  You will find Dr. Harry created the Black Belt concept and MAIC that you now know as DMAIC.  I would say these are universal things that are widely used. 
You mention the white and green books.  I too have these books.  Another poster said Bill Smith and Dr. Harry have now been recognized by MIT Sloan School of Business as the true innovators of six sigma.  I got the research paper from MIT Sloan School of Business.  It is true. 
As a suggestion you should want to be more caring about what you post.  With the internet it is too easy to see if you are telling the truth or not.  This time you are not telling the truth.  At least not the entire truth.  Try to be more factual in the future.  When you give all the facts you will be taken more seriously.

Lebowski.  Other well respected quality experts do not agree with your position about the shift.  Please read the following quote: 
 
“As I stated before, everything I needed to know about quality was published by 1931. I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, referring to Walter Shewhart’s book,which emphasized customer focus (“translating wants into physical characteristics”) and minimizing process variation.  Based on 1930’s technology, six sigma was a representation of plus and minus three sigma (viz. 99.73percent of the product being in specification), which translates into 0.27% defective if the mean remains centered, or 66,807 defects per million opportunities(DPMO) if the process aim goes to a worst case scenario of having shifted 1.5 sigma from the target.  Even though today’s target is six sigma (3.4 DPMO), most well-run organizations are running closer to four sigma (6,210 DPMO). Hence, there is still a long way to go forour continual improvement efforts”
 
Reference: Six Steps to Business Excellence:Integrating Six Sigma, Performance Excellenceand ISO 9001:2000.  Dr. Stanley A. Marash, P.E.Chairman and CEO, STAT-A-MATRIX, INC.

Lebowski.  Here is another full quote that does not support your opinions.
 
“Six Sigma is a way to measure the chance that a unit of product or a work process can be manufactured or performed with virtually zero defects.  For variables, Six Sigma is Cp = 2 AND Cpk = 1.5.  For attributes, Six Sigma is no more than 3.4 defects per million.”
 
Reference: Analyzing Risk through the Application of Six Sigma Concepts, National Center for Advanced Technologies, Georgia Tech and Texas Instruments.
 
Simplify the case Cp=2.0 and Cpk=1.5 and you will find the “shift” is 1.5 sigma.  If the “shift” is so wrong why do all of these highly recognized universities and corporations use it and publish it?

Lebowski.  Contrary to what you have said Dr. Harry has given credit to Bill Smith and Motorola:
 
“As Motorola executives began looking for ways to cut waste, Bill Smith was quietly working behind the scenes … In 1985, Smith presented a paper that concluded … As a result, Smith’s finding ignited a fierce debate within Motorola … Others at Motorola began to take a second look at Smith’s work.”
 
Reference: Harry and Schroeder, Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday 1999

Lebowski.  On the subject of Dr. Harry falsely indicating COPQ is 25% – 40% of sales:
“For many companies, cost of quality accounts for more than 40% of sales price.”
Reference: H. James Harrington. Poor-Quality Cost. Marcel Dekker, Inc. ASQC Quality Press.
In further support of this:
“Waste as a proportion of total sales revenue is about 30% for a typical company.”
Reference: Mikel Harry, The Vision of Six Sigma, 1994
This was also specifically stated as such in the: AT&T Cost of Quality Guidelines, AT&T Inc. 1990.
After some research it now appears that what Dr. Harry says about COPQ is true and what you say is false.
I now believe Bash Me Too was right.  Your opinons are not based on facts.  You falesly make things up about people (like Dr. Harry) and then attempt to twist things to make others look poor and you look good.
I have now provided you several specific things that are published.  Please provide your quotes and trade journal, magazine and book references to support your opinions.  If not, one can not help but belive it is YOU that is the “fraud.”
Please be more responsible in your postings then others will take you more seriously.  Until this time you have just demonstrated that you are nothing more than another basher lurking on this forum under the guise of several different names on a personal crusade to defame others that have contributed so much.

Praveen is the numb skull who claims that because of the 1.5 shift “all processes are out of control 13-14% of the time”.  !!!!
I wouldn’t believe anything of what an idiot like this has to say. 

Lebowski,
You misunderstood me – I know that they and most people here don’t believe in the 1.5 nonsense – that’s why they are all yawning  ;)
You are right about Harry’s contribution being the part of SS that doesn’t work.  Even Harry says that SS is 80% TQM – that’s the part that does works.
When will the masses throw away those idiotic SS tables ?

MBB:
Nice try but no cigar.  Give us a logical argument supported by good references and you too might be taken more seriously.  Its about time to clean this site of tabloid discussion and replace opinons and facts.  This means practicing the principles of six sigma and use fact-driven discussion.
Some of you try very hard to run a kangroo court around here.  You really think the good people on this site are going to convict other people based on your hersay and “trial in the tabloids” style of arguments?  Get real and get reality!
Example:
MBB says in last post: “You might fool CEOs.” 
Spoon says is this post: “I don’t even know a CEO so how could I have ever fooled one.”
Conclusion: MBB is grandstanding and providing false statements once again.

Spoon:
I agree with you.  I really like how you put them on the run with those great quotes.  Brandon caught them in the act a few times too and so did Joe BB.
I’ve been following your posts today.  You have provided some really good stuff and food for thought.  No wonder these site rats just come back with more bashing (you got the facts and they got the fear). 
Brando and some others periodically point this out and now I’m a believer.  The Lebowskis, Stans and MBBs don’t want to engage in reality.  They might even be the same person.  He/She/They only want to provide distorted opinions and put other’s down. 
Its very obvious their goal is to try and dominate this site.  They can’t get recognition in journals so they come here. They can’t seem to do it on professional grounds so they resort to bashing.  But when others on this site start catching them in their distortions, they go on the run.
Keep up the great posts.

Spoon – Reigle,
We get your message – you have defrauded lots of companies. 
No wonder Motorola had to sack 60,000 and lost market share.  No wonder GE customer satisfaction dropped and GE turned to outsourcing 70% of manufacturing.

There cannot be any way that Vinney is involved with Spoon. There are to many inaccuracies. The total of the Lebowski posts are in the last few days so researching what has and has not been said s very simple. Unfortunately as you have noted this is getting long so maybe Reigle needs to many cigarette breaks and is getting confused. If you take something as simple as the percentage attributed to a defect level. There is no Lebowski position on that because very early in the string there was a post that attributed it to a magazine not Harry.
This is more of the Reigle shell game. When a position is supposedly justified by quote from a CEO of a software company that is struggling to displace Minitab as the software of choice for a Six Sigma deployment what could his possible motivation be to suck up to Harry?
Thanks for the help but I do believe you missed on this one.
Lebowski

Not Praveen
and so the metamorphosis of “bash me too” continues, … after turning into “spoon” she has now finally reached the pious heights of Mother Superior … what a genius who not only defends the nonsense of the 1.5 shift in various disguises and with the silliest of arguments and quotes but in the process transforms from a foul-mouthed diletant to ultimate piouseness … of course her intellectual abilities are so limited that she feels compelled to quote from a previous post, … but this could also show that even the foul-mouthed little “bash me too” has a rudimentary ability to learn … 

Who’s your Daddy?

BTW, who are you sucking-up to?

And they call you the Wonderer!

Reigle Bash Me Too,
If Lebowski is wrong about Bill Smith show us a single published note or paper by Bill Smith.  You can’t because there is none !
Funny how you can’t come up with a shed of evidence for the 1.5.  You can’t because there is none !

Bill Smith’s paper pulls 1.5 sigma out of the air without any justification. In discussing uncontrolled processes on page 44, Smith says “Batch-to-batch variation can be as much as +/- 1.5 sigma off target”.
As Wheeler correctly points out, uncontrolled processes have no limit on how much variation can occur.
Harry’s role was to create a “theoretical” basis for the “shift” based on tolerances in stacks of disks. (Evans and Bender)

Lakota:
 
Do read the references you cited.  You will find that Evans and Bender worked on the problem of how shift and drift in the mean of EACH PART can influence the total STACK.
 
The bottom line is that these authors suggested the Standard Deviation of EACH PART (not the total stack) should be compensated.  The authors say that by expanding each part standard deviation on the order of 1.4 < c <1.8 the assembly gap analysis will be more consistent with the real world. 
 
This expansion factor (for the standard deviation each part) accounts for shifting and drifting in the process center (of each part).  By doing this, the designer can get a better feel for the cumulative effect of process centering problems when conducting a root sums of squares analysis.
 
Dr. Harry clearly demonstrated that when you expand the standard deviation of any one part by 1.4 < c < 1.8 under typical sampling conditions the effect is equivalent to shifting the mean about 1.5 sigma.
 
I’ve read several Posts where the poster said Dr. Harry misunderstood the use of 1.4 <c <1.8.  Unfortunately it was the posters that did not understand.  The posters thought the correction was at the assembly level, but it actually occurs at the part level.
 
Source: Harry and Prins. Mathematical Constructs Related to Process Centering. Intenal Motorola White Paper.
 
If you really study these papers, you will find that what I’m saying is true.
 

Bash Me,
I have read the papers and yes those words were published as you say.
The problem is they are based on theory and not reality. While these guys are sitting in an academic setting or like Dr. Harry, sitting inside of a company but working on theory, some people have actually got experience.
My experience is the ideas promoted by Dr. Deming when he talked about Mazda making transmissions for Ford are right. I have run multiple processes over the past 20 years where the difference between process potential and the achieved capability was on the order of a half of sigma shift (or expansion if you want to follow the revised explanation). This was not done with the ideas of tolerancing or of how to do SPC promoted by Dr. Harry.
Read Deming and read Taguchi and you will find what is wrong with the hype from Dr. Harry.

Spoon,
I am happy to concede lousy processes can run off target. I’m also happy to concede some people don’t understand how to characterise a process, even one variable at a time, or choose an insensitive part of the curve to operate in.
But to design this possiblity into a system seems like a good way to manufacture $100 hammers for the Navy – so they float if someone drops them in overboard.
Andy
 

Gary:
Your recent post said: ” I have read the papers and yes those words were published as you say.”  Thank you Gary.
You also indicate that “the problem is based on theory and not reality.”  From what I can gather from the literature, the shift thing is a combination of the two.  Seems that some emperical data from Motorola suggested the shift and some calculations using such things as the one-sample t-test, one-way ANOVA and the Chi-Square distribution support Motorola’s (Bill Smith’s) conclusions.
Like Stan, I believe it all boils down to one thing.  If you don’t have data, there is suffient theoretical evidence to support using 1.5 sigma as a guideline.  Unfortunately, too may people translated a simple “guideline” into a hard “rule.”  If you don’t like 1.5 sigma, use 1.4 or 1.6, but at least use something around this value to assure a product design is reasonably robust to some amount of process centering error prior to making a hand-off to manufacturing.

Lobo:
I could’nt agree more with you.  Getting the data is always best.  I believe the point is that if the aquisition of live or historical data is not possible or its too costly to do so, then invoke a shift factor.  If the true situation is a 1.9 shift and you happen to use a 1.3 shift, then at least you will be “mostly robust,” assuming you employed a robust design solution.  This is infinitely better than assuming Zero shift as Stan has suggested in the past.

You are incorrect.  Bill Smith said that if you set tolerances so that Cp=2, even with the worst uncontrolled processes, you get 3.4dpmo. This means you don’t have to worry about process improvements.

Bash Me Too:
I just want to make sure I understand your new proposal for the shift.
Let’s assume I see a roller top desk in JC Penny, but I can’t remember the width of a recess at home, where I’d like to put it. I think it’s about 2 meters, but I’m not sure.
I borrow the salesman’s tape measure and I measure the width of the desk at 1.8 meters.
If 1.8 corresponds to 6 sigma, that means 1 sigma = 0.3, so 1.5 sigma = 0.45.
Taking the width of the desk plus a shift allowance gives me 2.25 meters, and I conclude I my recess doesn’t have sufficient space capabilty, so I don’t buy the desk saving $799.99
I can see how this works now! I’m surprised Japanese companies don’t use it.

Andy,
You and other thinkers will appreciate this little gem from Bill Smith:
“Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width. This influences the quality of the product as much as the control of process variation does.”
In other words, no matter what you do, the gods of six sigma will limit process shifts to 1.5 and you can always ensure good quality by broadening specification limits.  You can forget about process variation and process improvements. 
No wonder six sigma is failing !!

Lakota:
I must agree with you on this one.  The quote you provide from Bill Smith is really dumb or taken its taken out of context.  I can not imagine Bill Smith meaning this in a literal sense.  Even the most novice engineer knows that a simple expansion of tolerances does not change “true” process capability.  Besides, most customers will not allow CTQ tolerances to be arbitrarily expanded.
You say six sigma is failing.  If so, then why do iSixSigma surveys and other reports show that its growing and most companies are reporting that works?  Maybe I read the survey results in a skewed manner, but it sure seems to say that six sigma is strong and alive.

Ed:
You say in your post to Andy that “I just don’t get it.”  To this point, I must agree with you.  You will probably never “get it” when your only apparent goal is to bash, hurt or defame people.  Look for points of agreement (not disagreement) and you will be amazed at what you will “get.”  When you look for points of disagreement, you will always find at least one, but when you look for points of agreement, you will generally find at least one.  Remember the phrase: You can draw more flys with honey than vinegar :)