iSixSigma

How to set an appropriate goal

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General How to set an appropriate goal

Viewing 47 posts - 1 through 47 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50505

    awm930
    Participant

    Although this is a basic part of the six sigma process, I would appreciate some insight from those more experienced on how to set an appropriate goal for a Six Sigma project.  Are there any “rules of thumb” when leading your team down this path or guiding management?  Any information would be appreciated, thank you.

    0
    #173632

    GB
    Participant

    VoC/QFD

    0
    #173634

    Brandon
    Participant

    I have heard used on a rather consistent basis a 70% improvement in the primary metric…..just rule of thumb though; no scientific backing.

    0
    #173635

    Deanb
    Participant

    I once heard a respected colleague say:”Pick the project goal that best reduces the 800lb gorilla from the organization’s back, and you will be invaluable to them even if no countable hard money was saved.” “Conversely, if you save a ton of countable dollars but make the gorilla bigger or meaner, then your value will be questioned even by your staunchest supporters.” Hence, pick the goal that that is most valued, not the goal that merely most valuable.

    0
    #173648

    annon
    Participant

    There are many ways to set SMART goals….

    VOC / HOQ
    Kano
    Rules of Thumb

    Lean

    OEE – 90/95/99
    6S – Percent improvement based on current capability

    2.0 sigma process v. 3.5 sigma process 
    Subject Matter Expert opinions
    Data

    Lines of clear demarcation

    Where does customer satisfaction, sales, performance, etc really fall off?
    Financial

    What is the min difference required for success?

    2:1 ROI
    Etc
    ETC

     
    Of course, the customer is always king…determine the process, its output, who consumes it – this is your customer, here is the source for goal determination – Charter > SIPOC > VOC/HOQ/KANO/Data > Goal Statement
    Good luck.

    0
    #173651

    Michael Mead
    Participant

    I believe the best measure to use for any improvement project, Six-Sigma or otherwise, are financial. I prefer Net Present Value of a project. All the senior management understand that and it is easier to compete for funds if you use the same measure as every other department in the organization.
    Good luck.

    0
    #173653

    annon
    Participant

    Cost certainly, but not necessarily measured in financial terms.  There are many instances where Financial metrics wont drive the decision making process of management.  But certainly everything has a cost consideration and should be baselined and considered in your assessment and selection process , if not a financial price.

    0
    #173659

    Deanb
    Participant

    Probably the most common project metric I have seen is “payback period.” This period is usually described in months. Generally, the shorter the project duration and payback period, the more interested management is.

    0
    #173660

    Mikel
    Member

    Man, I feel sorry for all of you who think these are good answers.
    Your answers are about how to pick projects, not how to set goals.
    Leadership picks projects based on strategy. The projects picked by leadership define the financials. They are what they are.
    Projects are measured on process metric improvements. The most common process metric goal for improvement is a 50% improvement between current state and entitlement.
    The only problem with Brandon’s answer is an absolute improvement of 70% may well be beyond entitlement and unobtainable.

    0
    #173662

    Deanb
    Participant

    Stan:
    I can see your point if the question is focused exclusively at the process level. However, AWM’s posts asks for guidance for setting goals at the “project” level. Your answer might be what he meant.If he meant “project level” then those goals often get formulated at the pre-approval, or proforma point for the project, and process goals become connected to these unless later discovery necessitates a revision in the project goals. For example: a hypothetical project proforma estimates process YYY’s factor-X can be reduced by 20% in a 5 mo. project at $X-cost with a payback of 6 months. When the project gets approved the project goals are already defined in “project” terms. In fact, defining them well helps get the project approved, making it essential to the project’s existence. AWM: please advise if we are answering your question or not.

    0
    #173666

    Taylor
    Participant

    Some of you are going to read this and say “What”, but I have a philosphy about setting goals. As a Facility Superintendent of a large Processing facility and corporate Reliability advisor to 7 other plants, I like to set goals that go something like this “We Fixed it” or “Its Fixed” and what I mean by “Fixed” is we never work on this again, ever. Is this goal obtainable, usually not, but the goal is set to constantly improve.
    Stan-although I agree with your point, to an extent, Each individual project has limitations as what can actually be acheived with the current process. I have seen projects where the goal was simply to increase production 5% or reduce scrap by 2%, but the overall financial impact was huge. Goal setting cannot be some arbitrary number that everyone adheres to, as it will ultimately enduce failure.
    The ultimate goal of any project should be identify the Y, and determine what will the impact be if Y is “Fixed” and that is the goal.
     

    0
    #173667

    Mikel
    Member

    Agree 100% with all you said. The trick is defining entitlement.

    0
    #173669

    Taylor
    Participant

    Stan- In past I have seen this done several different ways, but correct me if I’m wrong, Entitlement is generally a theoretical goal that is calculated for example like absolute cycle time, or the absolute best the process could ever acheive.  The trick is closing the gap between six sigma project goal and entitlement.

    0
    #173670

    Brandon
    Participant

    Agreed Stan – except, 70% improvement from current state to perfection may be very close to 50% from current state to entitlement.
    But what difference does it make – it’s just a guess none the less?

    0
    #173676

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad Vader
    This is probably going to take some verbage to describe without my slide so I expect some flack from Stevo.
    If someone thinks they need it to be a perfect number don’t bother reading this. It may get you close.
    If you plot you defect level in a time series format you will generally get a line representing defects that bounces around to some varying degree based on the level of “control” a process is in. The reason it moves is there are special events that occur that cause it to fluctuate i.e. special causes. If you remove those special causes the process will settle down at some ambient level and that is what we call entitlement “the best you can do with what you have.” Above the entitlement line you are affected by your process (people and equipment) and your supply base shipped quality level. 
    Below the entitlement line you are affected by your process (it’s inherent capability), your material suppliers capability (out the door) and your design (it has an inherent manufacturability).
    That is one way to get to entitlement but it takes a lot of information.
    Another way is easiest to explain from a metal stamping process. The stats guys don’t generally like but it has never bothered us much. If you set the machine up and stamp a short run of parts (25 groups of 5). You have one heat of material so that variation is frozen, one operator, one setup, no tool wear, etc so you have theoretically frozen variation and demonstrated “perfect control.” That can be used.
    Another option is to look at history and see what the best you have ever done is – no science – not accurate but it gets you moving.
    Setting goals? The lower the capability the higher the expectation should be. Everybody has seen the apple tree slide so the less capable you are the easier it should be.
    As mentioned earlier these are project level not deployment level goals. They are very different things.
    Just my opinion

    0
    #173677

    Mikel
    Member

    Brandon,
    Just when I think you may know something, you say something really dumb like this.
    70% of absolute will always be at least 20% more than entitlement.
    What difference does it make? Loads. 50%  of entitlement is easy for people to accept and see. It is empirical, but we have data to say when people can see what is possible (entitlement) they can accept getting half of it.

    0
    #173678

    Brandon
    Participant

    You’re right Stan…answered too quickly & didn’t do the math correctly.

    0
    #173681

    Michael Mead
    Participant

    I wonder if you guys have completely confused poor awn930.  Some people come here for simple answers to simple questions.
    How we determine the target value, or entitlement, or theoretical capability are beyond the scope of the question.
    Payback period, internal rate of return, return on investment, net present value…these are measurement tools for the “value” of a project. I cetainly agree that 50% reduction in scrap, “it will be fixed forever”, higher customer satisfaction, are all worthy goals…but how do they affect the company’s profitabiliy? Where is the payback?
    In America at least, “better quality”, is not an end all for a company. Of course, an investment like this has shown to reap great rewards in the long run for many firms. But I am reminded of Homer Simpson’s 1959 Dodge lookalike car that sold for $80,000. The question is about quantifuying payback.
    Now, there is my opinion :)

    0
    #173691

    Mikel
    Member

    “In America” Now you speak for all US Americans?
    What arrogance. Your answer is an MBA school answer and is of no practical purpose.
    Belts improve process metrics, not payback periods or ROI’s. Those things, along with known bleeding from Quality, Safety, Delivery, … are considerations when choosing projects by leadership. Belts are given projects with specific, measurable process metrics to be improved.
    Your advice is pretty lightweight.

    0
    #173695

    Michael Mead
    Participant

    Relax Stan,
    You had a few things wrong.  First, I am not in the US or any other America.  Yes, what arrogance? I don’t see any. But on cultural dimensions, and all too often in practice, managers have a short-term Focus. They are not Panasonic with a 50 year business plan.
    Leadership is one thing, we have already discussed that. We know it is important. What we are taling about here is how to measure change. You and I can probably grasp the value of many improvements that would be invisible to many functionsl area managers.
    From your previous posts I believe you are in a senior position in a corporation that fully embraces six-sigma. I however, have worked for several firms where no metric short of “reduced headcount” would garner sponsorship for a project.
    Third, I earned my education. I don’t criticize other people here when there opinion differs with mine. That is how I learn. I don’t consider myself a lighweight, my clients and employer don’t either.
    What nerve did I step on?

    0
    #173694

    JC
    Participant

    Stan,If you are ever in Houston, let me know. My supervisor needs to hear your take on things. She thinks metrics are a bunch of hooey and that they are a waste of time. I will give you an example of what I am dealing with: I have been given a project by my supervisor, with the expectation that I will use all of my quality knowledge and background, the end goal of which-and she put this on the project charter-is “to deliver a Performance Improvement Report to the manager that the manager creates.” There is no process metric, she wants no numbers, I have nothing to measure, but she calls it a Six Sigma project. Oh, and the execs have not even bought off on the project yet, but we are well into it she thinks. The point of my venting and rambling is to agree with you and your implicit statement that projects should be chosen by the leadership and their outcomes should have some type of improvement metric. Neither of which is going on with me.JC

    0
    #173705

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,While great for the books, this typical response discourages Black Belts from driving safety, training, and other HR process improvements because the connection to their company operations is usually too muddy to see, ROI is long term or too indirect for any finance person to sign off, or there is no return…just a flat line in deaths. Yet these “non-valued” processes in a company can and will break a company in the long run. Proactive is just as important as reactive projects with measurable goals.HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #173707

    Stevo
    Member

    Awm930,
    If unknown – Go with 50% improvement.  Adjust the goal as you get a better idea of what is attainable.
    Stevo

    0
    #173709

    Taylor
    Participant

    Mike I gree 100%, and that is what I meant by several different ways. I guess the Theoretical was meant more at, Yes, ~this is the best we can do.
     

    0
    #173710

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    I was responding specifically to the point of how do you establish entitlement. That doesn’t mean entitlement is something that is useful for every project. When we run safety projects fatalities and LTI’s have a target of zero. It wouldn’t make any sense to have a target of acceptable fatalities or injuries as long as you are in a company that has any reasonable level of morality.
    I made the point that this was specific to projects not deployments. What does and does not get included as possible projects is determined when the Leadership Team specifies the goals of a deployment. When we took on Lonmin the CEO was very specific. He specified the goal in terms of rand/pgm ounce. That specifically opened up cost and throughput for viable projects. Additionally he specified 20 percent of the projects would be safety related. That changes the scope of the deployment. Now we had to hit the taget in terms of rand/pgm ounce with 80 percent of the projects and we have to manage the project mix to assure at least 20 percent are safety related. The determination of what becomes a project should be specified in the goals/objectives of the deployment.
    A lot of these deployments that are first time deployments are specifically directed at cost reductions. When you mix the finance/accounting departments into the issue that will drop most safety, health and community type projects out of the mix specifically to your point they can’t quantify the impact financially. Environmental issues stay in at some very superficial level. If I choose to throw in the safety type projects when the Leadership Teams have specified cost reductions then I will end up with an issue at the end of the deployment of accomplishing something that wasn’t asked for. That wouldn’t make any sense.
    We speak constantly about alignment and how critical it is to success. As much as we may like to believe we are ethical and moral in the world of business it doesn’t really allow you to wander off and do projects that are out of alignment with what you were asked to deliver. The other issue is that should you choose to do those projects getting support from people/departments that are measured in some other way will make getting their support virtually impossible.
    As far ar will these projects break a company in the long run. Possibly. Depends on the location of the business. There is a mining company out there that reports fatalities as most do. When you look at that number you will see that there are no fatalities from “fall of ground” or what most of us would call a cave in or land slide. This company considers fall of ground an act of god and therefor there is nothing that can be done about it. Will that break them in the long run? Not in this particular location it is considered a basic risk associated with the business.
    The one thing that has been made very clear to us by Brad Mills (Lonmin CEO) is that there is an intangible benefit to doing safety type projects. There is no clearer way to put action behind your words that you care about the employees well being than to run safety projects and not attempt to quantify the benefits. That goes a long way in morale. Lonmin has a safety program called Zero Harm and it is has specific actions behind it that make the metrics move. Brad spoke to some of these metrics about a year ago in the iSixSigma Magazine article he was featured in.
    In terms of proactive and metrics let me give you an example of how you can drive this “proactively.” If you move ore underground with locomotives (little ones). It becomes vey tight in the underground haulages. When one derails and there is someone beside it you get at least an injury and sometimes a fatality. Derailing does have an associated cost independent of the injuries or fatalities. I can drive a project from an MTBF type metric that is proactive, has cost saving and the ultimate payoff is no injuries or fatalities.
    I am certainly not advocating ignoring Safety, Health, Environmental and Community (SHEC) projects. I am also not going to advocate running off and do them and disregard what the deployment objectives are because I know “God is on my side.”
    Just my opinion.
     

    0
    #173711

    anon
    Participant

    After a meeting I’ve just had I’d like to add that’s 50% reduction in errors not 50% increase in good.
    e.g. 80% error rate down to 40% NOT 20% good rate up to 30%.
    I just had to explain that to a someone and they weren’t happy that their projet just go a whole lot harder, doable but harder.

    0
    #173712

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    I agree. It will always be theoretical and approximate. There isn’t much difference in creating a number with some logic behind it and understand there is an error associated with that number and using some number with a confidence interval. When you don’t waste all your time worrying about perfect knowledge and get the best number you can with the data you have and as your knowledge improves you improve your number (and consequently the system that produces the number).
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #173713

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,I agree with your points on scope and leadership expectations; however, you can focus on both safety and training issues tied to the business needs by combining your goals and show indirect long-term benefit from increased morale, lower attrition, stronger commitment top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal, and better upfront thought before you cut safety and training budgets without full knowledge of their true impact. In the end these will all tie-in the ROI if people are willing to do their homework.My big point is that much improvement is needed in the “improvement” process to encourage these types of projects and measurements. Just ask a safety or hr person how many times he or she talks to bean counter to get financial impact and corrective action financial impact following an incident…. other than LTI, compensation, or some basic in-direct losses. It should not be an outside view of the company with.. we only go their when we have to because the leadership or reputation is public and then a care about. ..and if you are willing to except a 60 to 70 percent reliability factor you can map out a regression formula based on amount of fund support with output being level of tolerable or acceptable risk numbers.

    0
    #173716

    Deanb
    Participant

    Chris,I agree fully with the integrated project approach you described. For every factual problem there are usually some soft (safety, people, stakeholder, etc) problems connected to the factual problem that are inseparable. Separating and isolating the “hard fact” issues into a narrowly framed project at the exclusion of their related “soft” issues often does the factual problem no favor. Likewise, most “soft” problems end up having “hard” factual problems to solve as part of doing the soft project. There are times and places for strict isolated focus, however eventually even these need to integrate with their essential soft issues.

    0
    #173718

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    The reason I used to Locomotive example was to demonstrate that there is frequently a way to get to a tangible metric and/or financial benefit in safety projects. If it would have been a cost reduction deployment rather than a requirement of 20 percent safety projects we would have probably gotten the project in either way.
    In the end we can have all the discussion we want. Survival in a company is dependent on delivering what the company is asking for. Unfortunately in todays market Six Sigma is frequently sold as a cost reduction methodology. That is what they want and if you deliver anything else (out of alignment) you are the cause of the misalignment.
    When we begin a deployment we spend a lot of time helping with the burning platform so it opens up as much of the company as possible. If we don’t get it _ that is ok. We get results on what they want and then they are a more receptive audience at a later point. I could take a hard stand and tell them is is what I will and will not do but that wouldn’t move either of us forward.
    As far as the financial impact. Anything other than cost reduction gets you a fight from the accounting department primarily because that is what their system is designed to deliver. Even when we deployed at Motorola there was a book called “Relevance Lost” that was passed around the finance and accounting departments to try to get them to understand they have more of a role than tracking cost. Here we are about 22 years later with a system pretty much untouched by progress.
    Are we going to change managements view of safety through SS when their primary metric doesn’t adaquately measure it? Probably not. I have been fortunate in working with Brad Mills at two different companies where we have been required to address safety but is a personality dependent goal. I am sure if Brad left tomorrow the focus would in all probability shift to some extent but the other issue is there are governments such as the South African government that do not react well to companies that kill their employees.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #173719

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,Have lived in the world you have described oh so often. The point is that if you embed this way of thinking when you work their agenda you plant the seeds of change. I know.. corny but no truer today than yesterday. We all understand and practice external and internal VOC and also believe that the leaders get it and just chose to ignore what should be changed unless it is tied immediately to the bottom dollar. The more smaller victories you have with this complete system model the more the leadership sees and supports it… the more the field and floor managers want it. You go from fighting for who won’t give up resources to who gets it first.I also understand that to stay in business you must meet VOC but sometimes the customer does not know what they really need until you show them.Chris

    0
    #173720

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    My world is no different than any other world. Actually it may be since we work for multiple companies at the same time so we get a lot of variation in the Leadership teams we work with. As far as business goes – if it doesn’t work for me I don’t have to take the business.
    At the end of the day we can call it VOC or alignment or if you are a consultant or an internal program manager. The Leadership Team is the customer. You deliver what that team asks for because they run the company. They are responsible for setting the direction of the company. It makes no sense to believe that if you aren’t part of that team, that you have equivalent knowledge so you can second guess them.
    There was a book called “Coaching for Improved Work Performance” that I read probably 20 years ago. Don’t know if it is still around. He used an example of a group of people in a life boat all rowing towards land. One guy decides he doesn’t want to row so he stands up and starts to dance. Guess where this goes.
    Just my opinion. 

    0
    #173721

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,It’s not second-guessing the knowledgeable leadership team, it’s enlightenment of a bigger part of the system requirements and needs usually ignored or misunderstood. Put it in simple terms, you are hired to reduce production costs for building widgets as an outside consultant. Leadership is dead set on improving the efficiency of a recently purchased widget machine. Because of your knowledge of best practices, you know that this machine was not designed to meet the output it was bought for. No matter what numbers you show them who are you to second guess them. You have a couple of choices:
    1. Purchase an efficient machine (big cost)
    2. Modify the machine (moderate to big cost)
    3. Lower desired output goals (self-explanatory)
    4. Introduce a method that modifies the machine to meet output but puts the workforce in low to moderate (tolerable safety risk), you have seen this done in other areas. (low cost- immediate implementation)
    5. Go to another customer and say it is not for me.Your are always trying to meet the customers request and you are the outside expert who is paid to nudge the right decision and meet the team’s goal. Is this also considered second guessing even if the team believes they are right and have always done it this way?Chris

    0
    #173723

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    If you go back a few posts you will find I stated we will try to move them that direction in the beginning but if they don’t go we will run with what they want. Once you deliver what they have asked for, you build credibility and the “nudging” is frequently more successful.
    We have done a lot of deployments in the last 14 years and there have been 3 that included safety in year one. I am not sure where all this discussion around ROI not working as a metric came from (Stan is correct it is not a project metric) but it certainly is the correct metric for the deployment level. When deliver an acceptable ROI – particularly in year one (Lonmin broke even at 6 months) you have enough credibility you can influence the direction much more effectively.
    I guess I am not sure where you want this string to go. Will we run safety projects? Yes. Will we push to run SHEC projects? Yes. Do we try to calculate ROI on SHEC projects? No. Will I turn down a deployment specifically because they don’t want to do SHEC projects? No. Do I think I need to refer to a deployment that does SHEC projects as “integrated”? No. They are just another area of opportunity.
    You can call it what you like. If the Leadership Team is dead set on a cost reduction focused deployment and you decide to stone wall them for the sake of enlightening them you will piss them off to the point you won’t be there. That has nothing to do with being a consultant or an employee.
    I have never dealt with a Leadership Team that was so totally screwed up that they kept doing something wrong because they have always done it that way. Different story for middle management.
    Best practices in general is in the same catagory as benchmarking. Mostly done by people who don’t actually want to do anything. Rarely transferable and generally a waste of time.
    Regards

    0
    #173725

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,
    Understanding that our current string actually is a tangent from the original poster who wanted to know how to set a project goal, I was initially replying to Michael Mead’s post. I was responding to what should drive projects and leadership..not in opposition to your method and calculations for projects and metrics.
    I agree that with positive results can come effective future nudging with creditability. I however experienced companies with successful projects where people were not ready to nudge and only wanted to work certain operations and customer focused projects. That I believe we all agree is only part of the bigger system issues. Because these were internal projects and black belts going through certification, these projects more often than not were discouraged.
    My goal then is to get Black Belts especially internal to understand the importance of this part of the system and their responsibility for long term change.
     
    Respectfully,
    Chris

    0
    #173726

    Taylor
    Participant

    I love the way you two guys just signed of your respective post. Had to be the nicest FU and FU2 I have ever seen.

    0
    #173727

    Mikel
    Member

    Go back and read your post I responded to. Your response to me is as
    if you are not aware of what you wrote.If your customers don’t view you as a lightweight, give me two hours
    with them. I am sure it will not take more than that.

    0
    #173728

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    My initial response was a tangent of the tangent. There was the comment about establishing entitlement. That was my response. Project selection and metrics is one issue while deployment strategies and metrics are another.
    I would never try to resolve what you want to do at the project level. The types of projects that are within scope are determined at the Leadership Team level and SS should only be a piece of the overall company strategy. We have a customer who has a SS program and a separate program for safety. When we get projects that affect safety we never hesitate to highlight the over lap.
    If you go back to the late 90’s when we were launching SS outside Motorola there were two waring camps – Lean and SS. It was a pretty stupid situation driven primarily by consultants. Motorola never drove them separately (it wasn’t called Lean then it was called Cycle Time reduction) so it made no sense to most of us from Motorola. When we wrote the book “Leaning into Six Sigma” the major point in the book was that Leadership Teams did not have to choose one or the other the way they were being told they needed to.
    There will be a time when the application in SHEC will be more obvious to most people. Remember we have been through several phases of this already i.e. transaction people claimed it was manufacturing only and didn’t apply, IT people still say it, healthcare has come around to some extent, and of course there is the noise level stuff around sales, company size, countries, etc. Basically it goes back to some of your slides on thinking out of the box and resistance to change.
    I still believe that the biggest issue in effectively driving most of the correct projects is the poor application of current accounting methods to effectively manage improvement. They a have a century old + system that still allowed Enron to happen and we think the data can help us understand where to improve.
    This may be a little jaded but right now it takes a Brad Mills type individual that feels a heavy moral obligation to drive commitment like we have at Lonmin particularly in an industry that has about 22,000 people working underground daily (not to mention the explosives that are detonated 6 days a week).
    Finding ways to influence them works. Head to head with them gets you thrown out of the room.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #173730

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    The result of debating positions instead of issues. I got a chance to look at some of material Chris has presented and he has some really good stuff that more people need to be aware of and learn to act on so we have a common position but maybe two different ways to get there.
    Regards

    0
    #173731

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Are you slowing down?

    0
    #173735

    Vallee
    Participant

    Chad,We started it… where is your respective sign off? Thanks,Chris

    0
    #173752

    Taylor
    Participant

    Mike/Chris
    I have read every post you two have put together, and one thing that separates the average joe like myself from people that really are trying to figure things out is passion for what you believe in, whether based on experience or just plain ole common sense, either way, what I frequently notice, is when guys who really know what they are talking about are usually saying the same thing, just different; and from that usually, not always, speeds up the flow of the post, and the verbiage becomes somewhat excited in nature. My comment was not to be a slam on either one you, but a recoginition that you guys are passionate enough to debate what you believe in. And both of you closed in a fashion that said, I’m not debating any longer, but low and behold you did and now you both see things differently. So to that point, I learned something, whether anyone else did or not.

    0
    #173753

    Vallee
    Participant

    No offense taken or thought, remember R-B-L….Relax-Breathe-Laugh. And you still didn’t sign of your post respectfully… and you said you learned something.Thanks,HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #173756

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    Thank you.
    I am a victim of the topic Chris is going to speak about at an ASQ conference. My experience tells me what works and so that is the box that I choose to live in.
    When you get into these debates you vigorously/passionatly defend your box then you sit on the back porch at night with a little rum and Buffett’s new CD playing and think about how the box could change (and how you keep track of the change just in case it doesn’t work). It is always a risk to get a deployment rolling down a path and then try to change direction but we have never set two up alike so there is always some risk (the DMAIC material never changes but the structure around the deployment does).
    Glad we entertained you for a while. If you want to see some interesting stuff head to the conference where Chris is going to present. You need to be pretty introspective if it is going to do you any good.
    Regards

    0
    #173757

    Taylor
    Participant

    Mike  Chris
    As always, RUM and Buffet will sure make your box more transparent, especially when you are trying to decipher what was actually said. Info on the ASQ conf, would be greatly appreciated.
    And just for Chris
    Kind Thanks
    See I could have just said Thanks, and left you wondering what I really meant. Which how I close 99% of emails.
    And thank you too Mike
     

    0
    #173780

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    Chris would have the details on ASQ.
    If that doesn’t work there is the iSixSigma Conference coming in January. Maybe we can get Chris some time there.
    Hope to see you at that conference. On top of petitioning iSixSigma for some time for Chris maybe we can get them to do a beach party with rum and Buffett then we can all think out of the box.
    Regards

    0
    #173797

    awm930
    Participant

    I was speaking at the specific project level. I appreciate everyone’s
    insights.Abbie

    0
Viewing 47 posts - 1 through 47 (of 47 total)

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