iSixSigma

Fraud

Viewing 100 posts - 201 through 300 (of 316 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #147407

    Reality!
    Participant

    One can never have enough friends, in this world!

    0
    #147408

    Joe BB
    Participant

    These kinds of comments have no place in a forum such as this one. Please keep your private love private.

    0
    #147409

    Lebowski
    Participant

    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

    0
    #147411

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Banzi Pipeline Masters begins December 8 with $280,000 in prize money. The sport has definately changed since Jeff Spicoli’s daze.
    That was an attempt as one of those clever plays on words that Reigle found so cute.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147414

    GB
    Participant

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

    0
    #147422

    mand
    Member

    Harry is a smart con man.
    Reigle is an idiot but smart enough to be in Harry’s pocket.
    Marlon is just an idiot.
    Who else here is on Harry’s payroll ?

    0
    #147423

    Cravens
    Participant

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

    0
    #147425

    DF
    Participant

    Guys – Mikel Harry’s intent for selling Six Sigma was to keep nerdy misiguided statistical engineers of average intelligence at their desks pontificating and writing forum messages instead of screwing up manufacturing processes.
     

    0
    #147430

    Neutral
    Participant

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

    0
    #147431

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    If Dr. Harry is so insignificant in your eyes why do you focus on him so much?  Based on your volumes of diatribe one can only believe that you still find him to be highly significant in your life!!!

    0
    #147432

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Thank You?

    0
    #147437

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    If Dr. Harry’s work is so significant why do you feel you have to keep on defending it?
    Isn’t a man’work distinct from who he is?
    If some people believe his work is wrong – aren’t they entitled to criticise it? Or, are you demanding special privileges you don’t concede to others?
    For example, what happens when you go into a company and some people don’t agree with you?
    Isn’t this the true cause of all the animoscity? Can you blame them?

    0
    #147439

    Matthew
    Participant

    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.    

    0
    #147440

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    Wow! You’re the first person to ever bcame louder and louder in the forum – is this how you behave in meetings when someone disagrees with you? I bet it is …
     

    0
    #147441

    Matthew
    Participant

    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!

    0
    #147442

    Darth
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    Coincidental with all the Lebowski postings, I noticed that the original movie was on Showtime last night.  It was a challenge to flip back and forth between “Return of the Jedi” but I kept both story lines going.  I had never seen it before.  Dr. V, Dude, I can easily see you in the fxxxing role, Dude….as he takes another hit.  Good grade B cast as well.  John Goodman was a hoot.

    0
    #147448

    Correction
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147449

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Correction:
    Like I said earlier, Dr. Harry obviously plays a huge ongoing role in your life!!!

    0
    #147450

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    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 …

    0
    #147451

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Howling Owl:
    Let’s see, a few on this site says Dr. Harry never created anything new since it was all preexisting, like statistics, quality tools, etc.  Yet on the other hand, a few like you says he is “nearly all wrong.”  How can this be?  How can you not create something and then be all wrong for that creation?
    Fair’s fair …

    0
    #147453

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

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

    0
    #147454

    Correction
    Participant

    Bash Me Too,
    I am glad to see that you are in the process of becoming the uncontested champion in the league of players on this site that engages in intellectual special olympics.

    0
    #147455

    CJ
    Participant

    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?

    0
    #147456

    BB
    Participant

    Yes, it’s far better to have processes screwed up by idiots who have done a 2 week SS course, than statisticians.

    0
    #147457

    Martínez
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147458

    Daddy feeds the family
    Participant

    CJ,
    And yes, “as long as you put your feet under my table you will obey the daddy” … just grow up.

    0
    #147463

    Matthew
    Participant

    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:”

    0
    #147464

    BB
    Participant

    Matthew,
    When you know that someone like Harry has made false statements in order to make more money do you:
    1. FEEL it is fraud
    2. KNOW it is fraud
    ???

    0
    #147468

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147469

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    BB:
    Until you can establish the “fact” that any of his statements are false, it is a “feeling,” not “knowledge.”  I think there is a greater probability you are talking from feelings than knowledge when you say Harry made false statements to make money.  Seems like he had to fool a lot of people in high places over a lot of years to make the kind of money he made.  Personally, I think its more likely your feelings have run amuck than your argument being factual.

    0
    #147472

    Double Standards
    Participant

    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 … “

    0
    #147473

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Double Standards:
    You will have to better than your last post.  Attempts to deflect my point by proclaiming “double standards” does not change the validity of my point.  Why don’t you focus on the fact that Bells Labs published the “15-20%” sales loss guideline.  This is far more interesting than your finger pointing.  But then again, this forum is more like a tabloid so you fit right in.

    0
    #147474

    Double Triple Standards
    Participant

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

    0
    #147475

    Martínez
    Participant

    Bash Me,
    Yes, I have read the papers by Evans and Bender.  Have you ?  You wil find them difficult to obtain.  I’m sure very few people have taken the trouble I have.
    You may find it hard to “imagine” but Jack Welsh was not a statistician and did not investigate the origins of the 1.5.
    Can you prove that Bill Smith introduced the 1.5 ?  No !
    What “proof” of the 1.5 do you support ? 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 ?
    Pick one and I’ll tear it apart for you.  Alternatively read the previous posts on the forum here that show how much nonsense it is.

    0
    #147477

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    MBB:
    Good night, its time for bed.

    0
    #147478

    thandi
    Participant

    Can you please provide a single publication or note of any kind by Bill Smith indicating how he came up with 1.5 as you claim.  
    You will find the whole 1.5 thing is nonsense.
     

    0
    #147483

    Martínez
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147489

    Lebowski
    Participant

    A cult classic. I am glad to see you enjoyed it.
    Has this string hit record length yet. Probably not that obscene self promotion string on Six Sigma in India is still growing. I guess they have learned from a master.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147491

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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

    0
    #147493

    Infants, Imbeciles Neurotics
    Participant

    Bash Me Too,
    The fact that you are now running into a self-referenced loop of citing articles from isixsigma to justify the 1.5 shift/correction proves beyond a doubt your utter lack of education not only on this matter, but in your general ability to process information in general. You have yet again avoided an intelligent answer to MBB’s questions. Instead you are regressing back into the simple-minded closed-loop pattern of avoidance and personal attack (out of frustration for lack of substance) that is so characteristic of infants, imbeciles and neurotics.

    0
    #147495

    B Westlake
    Participant

    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 ?

    0
    #147498

    Lebowski
    Participant

    “one can only believe that you still find him to be highly significant in your life!!!” There is no doubt in my mind that this is the only thing you are capable of believing. The double standard here is that you chose to bash, that thing you find so distasteful, Correction about what you felt were his assumptions about Bill Smith’s thought process. For some reason you think you can make assumptions concerning what I see as significant in my life. 
    Actually Reigle this diatribe is more about you directly and Harry indirectly. We watched you introduce yourself onto this site anonymously and promote Harry. Not an issue if that is what a person believes but there are rules concerning self promotion. As usual you and Harry do not believe those rules apply to you. Once Stan did uncover you as Reigle you denied it and denied any affiliation with Harry even when you were listed on the Harry website. Your deception has continued since then. The reprehensible part is when someone such as Correction has done some interesting research you find it your job to bash people back into submission by berating them for not treating your false profit with what you believe is the correct amount of respect. At some point it recomes irritating enough to get involved and let you and Harry know that you can get puffed up like a banty rooster and nobody is changing their minds because you are intimidating them.
    You are a hypocrite. You have proven that. You are a liar. You have proven that. Now with those two things laid bare in public by yourself you demand to be viewed in the same light as Deming and Juran. That makes you arrogant and stupid.
    Just as an additional note I made the assertion you were not smart enough to make some of those earlier posts. Congratulations there is no doubt you did this third grade level post all by yourself.
    Lebowski

    0
    #147499

    Lebowski
    Participant

    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

    0
    #147500

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Why is that obvious to anyone other than yourself? Why would you be arrogant enough to post that as you believe so everybody else should believe. Actually that is the MO of the Harry camp. No wonder you believe that nonsense.
    You obviously need Harry’s help with your posts. The great part is that as they become more childish they also seem to be getting shorter.
    Lebowski
     

    0
    #147501

    Lebowski
    Participant

    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

    0
    #147502

    Lebowski
    Participant

    MBB,
    If you go back through the threads over the years, no that the site has the search capability, you will find that several of the people you listed and several you have not listed have posted over the years that they do not care or do nor believe in the 1.5 sigma shift.
    Basically the bashing that Reigle has done over the years to the people he claims have been bashing Harry are true? It certainly looks like there is a strong possibility that Harrys only contribution to the Six Sigma methodology is the only part that does not work?
    Lebowski

    0
    #147503

    Spoon
    Member

    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.

    0
    #147505

    Spoon
    Member

    Lebowski.  In a recent post you said:
    “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.”
    You should want to read Jack Welch’s books.  I am a avid reader and have read these books.  In these books you will find Jack Welch citing Dr. Harry several times about his role in bringing six sigma to GE.  Your quote above is certainly not consistent with Welch’s books.  Again I would admonish you to be more truthful and factual.  But you might also believe Welch is a fraud and liar.
    Im not trying to defend Dr. Harry here.  Im just getting very tired of reading so many posts containing opinions that are not backed by what is in the literature.  You are trying to look intelligent to us.  So be and look intelligent by being more factual in an unbiased way.

    0
    #147507

    Spoon
    Member

    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.

    0
    #147508

    Spoon
    Member

    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 ¡Ý 2 AND Cpk ¡Ý 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?

    0
    #147509

    Spoon
    Member

    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?

    0
    #147510

    Spoon
    Member

    Lebowski.  This full quote that does not support what you have said:
     
    “Remembering Bill Smith’s Six Steps to Six Sigma, it’s possible to see the potential of poka-yoke. Smith’s six steps to Six Sigma are listed below:
     
    * Define products or services.
     
    * Identify customers and their critical requirements.
     
    * Determine company’s needs and their sources.
     
    * Establish a work process and mistake-proof it
     
    * Measure process capability and make adjustments if it’s less than desired levels of Cp = 2 and Cpk = 1.5.
     
    * Improve the process capability and achieve Cp = 2 and Cpk = 1.5
     
    Reference: Praveen Gupta, Six Sigma and Poka-Yoke, Quality Digest
     
    This is very clear.  The 1.5 shift was from Bill Smith not Dr. Harry.  Also clear is that Motorola used the “Six Steps to Six Sigma.”  MAIC and Black Belts was introduced by Dr. Harry not Bill Smith.
     
    Well respected sources indicate that Bill Smith introduced the idea of six sigma and the “1.5 shift” while Dr. Harry introduced the idea of MAIC and Black Belt.  This is why Bill Smith and Dr. Harry are often confounded in the literature as the “father of six sigma.”  Go read the MIT article and you will see this.

    0
    #147511

    Spoon
    Member

    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

    0
    #147512

    Spanish Highlands
    Member

    Spoon,
    Whatever latest name you give to yourself “bash me too etc.” you cannot escape the fact that your simple mind is stuck with the reading of highly publicized trade journals that make highly sensational claims and are feel good journals for readers like yourself who revel in the vanity of their intellectual mediocrity. I hate to break it to you, but the Sloan Business school journal is at the same level as Quality Progress or Harvard Business review … no empirical evidence is required to publish an article. As someone else on this site mentioned before, you cannot hide your lack of education and the fact that you are obviously not trained at a PhD level. Keep on chewing on a subject that is way beyond your intellectual and educational capabilities … Your naively written posts that boast with the proud voice of conviction but completely lack intellectual depth are always amusing to read. You start to look more and more like Don Quichote. What a sad, yet amusing figure you are … but keep on fighting your 1.5 shift windmill:-).

    0
    #147513

    Spoon
    Member

    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.

    0
    #147514

    Darth
    Participant

    Dr. V.,
    Regards from Dr. Barry of the Bench by the Bay.  Reunion was very interesting.  Caught up with another classmate that you might actually know.  He is Dr. Jay from Berkeley.  He worked at the B Labs and has done a bunch of work in the medical field.  Catch me offline at [email protected] and I will provide a name in case you guys know each other.  If not, he can always serve as an alternative source in case Dr. Barry comes to visit again :-).

    0
    #147515

    Cravens
    Participant

    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. 

    0
    #147516

    Matthew
    Participant

    Thank you for that post and for being succinct!  

    0
    #147517

    Martínez
    Participant

    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 ?

    0
    #147518

    Martínez
    Participant

    Spoon,
    This sort of pathetic quote shows that you don’t understand the difference between control limits ( Shewhart’s 1930’s technology) and specification limits (Cp=2 being sick sigma “technology” ).
    You might fool CEO’s but you won’t fool anyone who has studied even basic statistics.

    0
    #147519

    Spoon
    Member

    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.

    0
    #147520

    Not Praveen
    Participant

    It’s so sad that you must resort to put-downs, labels, and various name calling of other professionals on this forum, in order to try and make a point. It gives temporary self-satisfaction, until you realize that your gifts were not accepted and you’re the one left holding them. Look in the mirror and you’ll see the reflection of such gifts looking right back at you. Have a nice day!  

    0
    #147522

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147523

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Yo MBB, it looks like you and Lebowski got caught with your pants down by Spoon.  Better lick your wounds and start telling the truth.

    0
    #147524

    BB
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147528

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Your concerns over the accuracy of my posting is very touching. So we agree the tools did not come from Harry. The concept of shift did not originate here either but the justification(s) did. You do seem to have problems keeping the postings straight though. I specifically said it was Praveen’s situation that was more convincing of the concept originating with Bill Smith. The entire involvement of Lebowski is driven by the arrogance and lack of integrity of Bash me too aka Reigle. That leaves two issues the methodology and the concept of a BB.
    Let’s take the easy one first. If we get an original publishing of a book titled Machine Process Capability by a Motorola guy at Semi Conductor we can find a methodology that is a better approximation of todays Six Sigma process than the process defined in the White and Green books. The original publishing predates the White and Green book.
    The name of BB must have begun with Harry since he has legal claim to the name. There is a pretty important contribution. That does not mean the concept came from there. There was a publication by Juran that was called the Juram workbook and it was accompanied by tutorial tapes. You watch a tape and then use the tool. It sounds like a familiar concept.
    I have read most of your posts and you do have a problem attributing things said by others to me. If you are that concerned with accuracy you may want to review those and consider a retaction.
    Lebowski
     

    0
    #147529

    Lebowski
    Participant

    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

    0
    #147531

    mand
    Member

    Hey Reigle, or Spoon, or Bash Me, or whatever you want to call yourself,
    What happened to your version of the 1.5.  You know, that nutty thing with the 3/SQRT(n) = 1.5 ?  Have you given up on that one ?
    Yeh, it was really too stupid for anyone to believe, wasn’t it ?
     

    0
    #147532

    Mother Superior
    Participant

    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 … 

    0
    #147534

    Sorour
    Participant

    Fred:
    You sound like a very smart guy. Are you suggesting something to improve Six Sigma?
    paul

    0
    #147535

    CJ
    Participant

    Who’s your Daddy?

    0
    #147536

    Mother Superiors’ Father
    Participant

     
     
    Fred,
    You looked in the mirror, ha?
     
     
     
     

    0
    #147537

    CJ
    Participant

    BTW, who are you sucking-up to?

    0
    #147538

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Lebowski:
    Seems you are now backing up on some of your claims!  First, you said Dr. Harry introduced the goofy shift thing, now you admit he did not (Bill Smith did).  Next, you say he made no contribution, yet now you admit he introduced the term Black Belt and MAIC.
    Now you are trying to say Dr. Harry got it all from Juran.  If at first your don’t succeed, try a new angle.  However, I must give you credit for at least acknowledging your errors (or the errors of others on this site).
    Now, why don’t you look at the publication date of the book you reference.  Plus, you will find no mention of “MAIC” in this book.  Do your homework like Spoon and get some references and quotes (that are not taken out of context).
    Yes, I am that concerned about accuracy.  Especially the inaccuracy of the “opinions” you present in lieu of facts.  Step up to the plate and show us your stuff like a true pro.  More facts and less opinion.
    Way to go Spoon, you got’em on the run.

    0
    #147539

    CJ
    Participant

    And they call you the Wonderer!

    0
    #147540

    CJ
    Participant

    They’re on the run and have to be SPOON fed!

    0
    #147542

    mand
    Member

    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 !

    0
    #147545

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Sam:
    You said “show us a single published note or paper by Bill Smith.  You can’t because there is none.”  Once again you are wrong.  Bill Smith did publish a paper:
    Bill Smith, “Six-Sigma Design,” IEEE Spectrum, September 1993, v 30, n 9, pp 43-46.
    Well you see the reference in front of you now, don’t you?  This is what I mean, more “opinons,” not fact.  Well, read my facts above.  How about an apology?  Of course not, not from you.  You’ll just find some other diatribe to dismiss the errors of your ways.  Once again, you are just another basher that has been called out into the open.

    0
    #147549

    Lakota
    Participant

    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)

    0
    #147554

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hau Lakota,
    I found your post very interesting.

    This appears to be a ‘throw-back’ to batch development in the semiconductor industry, where critical linewidths used to jump by several orders of magnitude – especially in Austin Texas when a cold from comes through, and the humidiy drops by 60%!!!!
    We solved this problem in 1986 by converting to single-wafer processing and spinning on water on to each wafer to saturating them and make them impervious to changes in humidy. Isn’t this what they call robust design?
    As the other poster pointed out – What Shifts?
    Andy
     

    0
    #147560

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.
     

    0
    #147563

    O’Connell
    Participant

    Oh no! Not another internally published paper!

    0
    #147564

    Cone
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147571

    Spoon
    Member

    Andy:
    I agree with you, batch-to-batch variation can be as much as 1.5 sigma off target.  It’s also good to hear you were able to successfully create a robust solution to this problem.
    But can you imagine how many processes are without an “Andy” to help them.  Its a well know fact that the overwhelming majority of processes do not use SPC or Robust Design methods (to limit or eliminate process centering problems).  They simply apply “intuition” to solve problems and hope for the best, adjusting along the way.  These types of processess do shift and drift while being operated.  Truth be known, the shift and drift for uncontrolled processes is likely to be far more than 1.5 sigma.

    0
    #147573

    Anonymous
    Guest

    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
     

    0
    #147578

    Surfspudkowski
    Member

    I’ll get up with you off-line to see in practice again the much less than Six Degrees of Separation  – in some field’s ever-widening circles it’s not more than one or two degrees of separation.  
     
    But I’m surprised that you’d attribute Spoon’s witless and sans wit “look-ups” to me.   Shocked and a bit disappointed.    They’re not even tongue-in-cheek pokings at Lebowski; they’re more tongue-lolling-on-the-keyboard thrashings and flailings in vague support of Dr. Chubbowski and the troll – most likely written by the troll.      
     
    I’d play some more but I’m out-of-pocket and time for the next few weeks.   
     
    Surfspudkowski

    0
    #147582

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147584

    Lobo
    Participant

    Allowing for process slop and not bothering to get data doesn’t seem to be a good way of achieving a robust design.I wonder what Crevelling thinks of this approach.

    0
    #147588

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147591

    Mikel
    Member

    Basher honey,
    You having fun lying about what I have said?
    It may be fun, but you are losing what little cridibility you have. Anyone can search and see I have never said zero shift.

    0
    #147595

    walden
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147598

    Ed
    Participant

    Reigle,
    Now this is a blatant fraud even for you.
    Harry’s Chi square approach was shown to be nonsense just a day ago.  You can pick whatever value you like between 0 and 50+.
    Where’s the “one-sample t-test, one-way ANOVA ” proofs ?  This is a blatant lie.  You are trying to con Gary.  Show us these new “proofs”
    Gary – just watch this thread – you won’t see Reigle give an answer.

    0
    #147599

    Lobo
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147601

    Ed
    Participant

    Andy,
    You must admit though, it is always comforting to know that no matter what you do, no matter how out of control your process may be, the gods of six sigma are always looking after you and limiting your process shifts to +/-1.5 sigma.
    Just ask Reigle, Harry proved it with a stack of pennies ! 
    I wonder how many people actually buy this stuff ?  Reigle and Harry are still in business so I guess they must.  I just don’t get it !

    0
    #147607

    Lakota
    Participant

    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 !!

    0
    #147609

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Ed and Gary:
    1. My name is not Regle.  Like many of you, I prefer to remain unkown.  If you want to call me Regel, its OK, but it won’t change who I am.  If you want to blast him, then like another poster said, pick up the phone and call him and talk to him.  This approach is far more civilized when compared to back stabbing on a forum.
    2. Nobody “demonstrated” Harry’s Chi-Square approach was wrong, but we did see a lot of “opinions,” but from what I can discern, none of the math its wrong.  Yes, you might argue with the assumptions, but not the math.  Moreoever, several people on this site (guess who) have tried to attach Harry’s principles to SPC, then use “process control charts” as a way to negate the principles.
    3. In his books and papers, Dr. Harry does not treat the shift thing as a constant, but folks like Ed and Stan want to misquote him so as to create the illustion of “something wrong.”  Just go to “Ask Dr. Harry” on this site and you’ll get the answers without all the opinonated overlays.  There are several nice descriptions of the shift (and other related things).
    4. From everything I have read, Dr. Harry NEVER offered any kind of “proof” related to 1.5 shift.  People like Ed and Stan simply try to use this terminology to make it look like Dr. Harry’s generalized principle of process shifting is some kind of offering for a “proof.”
    3. The one-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA models for demonstrating the 1.5 shift can be found in Dr. Harry’s book: Resolving the Mysteries of Six Sigma and several other papers he has written over the years, such as Harry and Prins, “Mathematical Constructs Related to Process Centering,” Motorola Inc.
    4. This guy Ed is just playing with your head.  Seems that all he can talk about is “blatent fraud” and “blatent lies.”  Gary, read the references and judge for yourself.

    0
    #147610

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    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.

    0
    #147611

    Time out?
    Member

    Bash Me Too,
    Don’t you think it is time to just let go? We all have heard the arguments on both sides over and over again. Maybe it’s time to just cool down :-).

    0
    #147612

    Basm Me Too
    Participant

    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 :)

    0
    #147613

    Ed
    Participant

    1. So ?
    2. You seem to have missed the proof that Harry’s Chi square approach to 1.5 is nonsense. Here it is again:
    If you take sets of data from a population and measure the standard deviation (“s”) of each data set, you will find that each has a different value for “s”, and that value is different from the standard deviation for the population (“sigma”).
    The greater the number of samples that are taken in each data set, the closer the sample standard deviations will be to the population standard deviation.
    We can compare the reliability of sample standard deviation (“s”) as an estimator of the population standard deviation (“sigma”) using a statistical test that compares variances, the “Chi square” test. We find that the estimate depends on the number of values used and the confidence interval selected.
    For example, for a control chart with 100 points (n=5) we can be 50% sure that sigma is within +/- 1.0007 * s. (the “*” symbol denotes “multiply” ). That is, the sample standard deviation is a very good estimate of sigma. We can be 99.5% sure that it is within +/- 1.088 * s.
    Conversely, if we only took a total of 5 points, we would get a larger error in the estimate of sigma. If we wanted to be 99.9999998% certain, we find that sigma is +/-18.5 * s. At 99.5% it is +/- 4.4 * s
    Mikel Harry takes a special case of a very unusual control chart with only 6 points (n=5) at 99.5% and gets 1.49. He then multiplies this by 3 (for 3 sigma control limits) and subtracts 3 to gets 1.47. If he had taken other values, he could get any number he wished between 52.5+ and 0.0
    There is no “shift” of 1.5 and there is no need for “corrections” of 1.5. There is no justification for using +/-1.5 in any calculation.
    While estimating sigma from sample standard deviations is interesting, it is irrelevant to process management. Shewhart Chart control limits are not probability limits. They do not depend on the reliability of any estimates of sigma as described by Mikel Harry. Control limits are always based on 3.0. Control Charts do not need normally distributed data and do not need any “correction”.
    Conclusion: Do not use six sigma tables based on 1.5.
    3. Yes, shifts are not a constant.  Shifts are not limited to 1.5.  Shifts can be anything 4 sigma, 6 sigma, anything.  What is wrong is Harry’s attempts to limit shifts to 1.5.
    4. Yes, there is no proof.  The 1.5 doesn’t exist.
    5.  Harry will continue to come up with all sorts of nonsense to prop up his failing SS empire.
    6.  Knowingly deceiving the public is fraud.  The 1.5 stuff can only be the product of stupidity or fraud.  Given that Harry has some measure of education, the latter is more likely.

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 201 through 300 (of 316 total)

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