iSixSigma

Is anybody really six-sigma capable?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Is anybody really six-sigma capable?

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 147 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47582

    Brent
    Participant

    Does anyone have hard information that can be backed up of a company that has actually achieved six-sigma capability (3.4DPMO)?

    0
    #158714

    qualitycolorado
    Participant

    Brent, Good morning!
     
    The practice of Six Sigma is often more directional (IMPROVE!) than an actual destination (3.4 PPM, or whatever).  A lot of training classes cite examples of bigger-picture Six Sigma (like, the number of airplane passenger fatalities due to crashes compared to the total number of trips per year), but these are usually just for explaining the theoretical concept of Six Sigma as a number.
     
    In terms of “real” processes, the best I have ever seen “in the open” is 5.4 sigma (for one process at one company).  This company, by the way, did not advertise that it was trying to make the whole company Six Sigma-capable — it was approaching improvement one process at a time, taking the most-critical processes first — reasonable, right?
     
    Best regards,
    QualityColorado

    0
    #158717

    Hiro
    Participant

    Toyota …

    0
    #158718

    Mikel
    Member

    Toyota, nor Honda,  has not achieved 6. But they are closer than anyone else.

    0
    #158719

    Ron
    Member

    This question implies the lack of understandig of what six sigma means. Six sigma is specific to a process. So if you ask me if a process is at six sigma I can respond.
    If you ask me if a company is at six sigma that is a non question. It is like asking if a town is pregnant.
     
    And Yes Motorloa does have processes that are at sixsigma. Airline accident free travel is beyond six sigma.
     
     

    0
    #158725

    Brandon
    Participant

    Ron – I don’t mean to be argumentative but what is a company other than an assembly of processes? If each process can be SS measured why couldn’t a company be SS measured?

    0
    #158726

    Mikel
    Member

    What process is beyond six sigma at Motorola?
     

    0
    #158728

    Tierradentro
    Participant

    Brandon:
    Likewise …
    Why would we believe each process is independent? Isn’t that what Process Sigma assumes?
    Where’s Praveen – perhaps he can tell us how he tested that assumption in his Nasa model :-)
    John

    0
    #158729

    Organizational boundaries
    Participant

    Let’s turn the question around: Let’s assume you could calculate a sigma score for aggregated systems of processes. Where do you set the boundaries for the calculation of a sigma score of, for example, a strategic alliance, a value network or other form of more or less integrated value and supply chains? Do you define the “firm” by criteria of a stock exchange, in terms of the “theory of the firm” in economics? It is virtually impossible to identify the boundaries of certain organizations because it is related to so many interlocking relationships and involved with so many value-adding processes, value chains and supply chains. “Anybody” assumes that a “body” has clear boundaries.

    0
    #158731

    Brandon
    Participant

    I agree OB. One could only attempt to put a sigma score on the sum total of a firm’s existing processes to assess performance of what the company is delivering in their current position.
    It would not be possible to “assess” a company’s performance relative to all its opportunities for broader product lines, extended distribution channels, etc.

    0
    #158733

    Organizational boundaries
    Participant

    Brandon, I am glad that we can agree (with Ron too :-). A little more food for thought: If sigmais a measures that is adeuqate at the process level, and stock price reflects the valuation of the firm in the (stock )market, i.e. at an aggregate level that is defined by the way that the company is legally incorported, it is not surprising that it is elusive to find a correlation between “the” sigma “level” of the organizational processes and the financial performance of the “firm”. Problem one is related to the boundary of the processes vis-a-vis the firm’s definition in a stock market, problem two is that measures at different levels of aggregation are correlated (economists typically refer to this as fallacy of composition). That is one of the reasons why Return on Investment or a measure that is closer to the process is used rather than the stock valuation to determine the success of six sigma.  

    0
    #158734

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    Ron,
    I think your definition of defects for the US airline business may be too narrow.  What about all of the cancellations and late arrivals?
     

    0
    #158739

    GrayR
    Participant

    What is your basis for saying that Toyota & Honda is closer than anyone else? The latest car ratings for Toyota are about 100 defects/100 automobiles.  Unless you have something to back up the internal defect rate in Toyota vs. ‘anyone else(?)’

    0
    #158741

    Organizational boundaries
    Participant

    C. this is exactly where the problem of combination of sigma scores comes into play.
    The safe departure and landing is estimated at a 7 sigma level and is pretty stable across all airlines. By contrast, I recently calculated the sigma score of lost or misplaced baggage at a level of 2.5 – 3.5 sigma depending on the airline (Southwest scores high, United/Delta/American score at the low end). With safe landing and departures being an “expected” level of performance and no service differentiator, other dimensions enter the decision-making process of consumers such as: probability of arrival of baggage, and recently even more importantly handling of delays due to “disasters”. Any of these quality dimensions are also evaluated against cost considerations because ultimately the customer anchors the decision based on value (what you pay for what you get) rather than satisfaction with quality alone.
    The advantage of the sigma score is that it allows for a comparison of the performance of various processes relative to customer expectations. The problem is that six sigma has traditionally not evaluated the relative weighting of the importance of these performance scores in conjunction with price considerations in the decision-making process of the customer. VOC research often identifies CTQs and their relative importance, but does not relate these weighted CTQs to the full decision making process of customers and consumers which also includes price. Six sigma would have to determine “value” (what you pay for what you get) rather than “quality” in order to determine how process improvement affects the relative switching or loyalty behavior of consumers and then ultimately the revenue stream.
    Unfortunately, marketing and operations management are currently very disjointed in many organizations and VOC does stop short of this next step by restricting itself to the identificaiton of attribute satisfaction rather than determining how customers determine value and make decisions (buy, switch, re-buy etc.).

    0
    #158749

    Hetchner
    Member

    Why do you think 100 cars corresponds to 100 opportunities? If you just go by components alone, each car represents at least 5,000 components! Then there are all the teeth on each gear ..etc.
    I could do on but I won’t bore other readers … :-)

    0
    #158750

    Amit J Sharma
    Participant

    Six-Sigma is a performance level for a process not for a company ? You can have a company that has most processes operating at Six-Sigma.
    One way of calling a company six-sigma could be the one who has not more than 3.4 pcs out of a million sold reporting any warranty claims. I believe that is hard for any automobile company, given the No. of components and complexity.
     
    I don’t understand the basis of mentioning the name Toyota in a previous message

    0
    #158765

    Mikel
    Member

    If you have learned about Six Sigma without also studying Toyota Production System, you are only are the beginning of your understanding.

    0
    #158781

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Amit J Sharma,
    Considering we have just gone through a couple posts on the airline industry being at 7 sigma and then you make this statement:
    “I believe that is hard for any automobile company, given the No. of components and complexity.”
    I suppose a jet engine for an airliner is less complicated than an automobile? Either someone someone needs to rethink the 7 sigma number or you need to change what you believe. Probably the latter.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #158783

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    QC,
    There is a lot of substance to what you are stating. Very few people seem to remember the goal we worked to at Motorola was a 10 fold improvement every 2 years and a 100 fold improvement every 4 years i.e. a rate of improvement.
    There was an exchange in this Forum a couple years ago about this. Someone took the position that the only thing that mattered was the rate of change which is incorrect. If you are in the automotive business and you are 100 percent defective but you are improving at 10 fold every 2 years most OEM’s really won’t care about your rate of change. You need some level of competance to start from.
    Regards

    0
    #158821

    Amit J Sharma
    Participant

    Dear Mike,
    About airline industry operating at 7-Sigma. The 7-Sigma here corresponds to a process i.e., landing & take-off. As far as Baggage handling process of airline industry is concerned no one operates at more than 3-Sigma.
    The point that I want to make here is that “7-Sigma” corresponds to a process not entire industry or entire co.
    Also, sigma level of any process in airline industry does’nt have to do anything with complexity of jet engine.
    Appreciate if you could advise on a way to calculate sigma level for entire company or industry (all processes put together).

    0
    #158829

    Non sequitur
    Participant

    Amir, you’re dealing with a non sequitur or red herring, however you want to put it. A sigma score for an entire “organization” simply doesn’t make any sense! Use your logic (Tarski would be a good starting point if you haven’t gotten the point from previous responses yet) and if that doesn’t help may be read up on some of the literature on operations management, economics and management, or work in an organization that has implemented six sigma. If that doesn’t help, metaphyscis may be a good aread of “research” … don’t dabble into this type of question when you haven’t even gotten the basics yet. And please spare me the “you’re unkind/unprofessional” response … the question was answered a long time ago. Go on to something new!

    0
    #158839

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Amit J Sharma,
    You need to check out the response from Sequitur.Your response is one of those psuedo philosophical do loops that has no point and makes no sense.
    A business is made up of processes. That 7 sigma process you speak of take-offs and landings – try one of those without an engine. So the aircraft engine is applicable to this example as the reference you made to the complexity of an automotive company.
    Where is you data that says that no one operates at more than 3 sigma?

    0
    #158856

    GrayR
    Participant

    An expected response.
    BTW — from your postings, it seems that you may have had some involvement in the development of Six Sigma.  Congratulations and I respect what has been done. I was not involved in the development, but that doesn’t mean that some of us weren’t using statistics-based process improvement many years before Motorola developed Six Sigma. There was an understanding of the effects of variability, how to analyze for variability, and also how to minimize variability BM (that’s Before Motorola, to you). Take away the 1.5 sigma shift, and some of the other drivel, and there isn’t much new with Six Sigma.  The DMAIC structure is appreciated, but other than that(?). Software based statistics programs made Six Sigma successful and have continued popularity today.  Deming focused everyone on reducing variability in the 1940’s, why do you think you have a lock on that concept?
    BTW2 — it also seems that you may have some understanding of lean concepts, but I haven’t seen any real knowledge on what you really understand about TPS.  You would be better off providing some real knowledge on TPS to the posters in this forum rather than insults.
    Regards.

    0
    #158868

    Mikel
    Member

    I agree with both points.

    0
    #158872

    Ron
    Member

    The reason is mathmatical. Sigma scores would two six sigma processes be 12 sigma? No!
    Would they be .36 Sigma…
    The airlines for example does very well on loss of life per flight hour metrics exceeding the sixsigma threshold. That does not equate to a six sigma industry.
    I welcome the debate on this topic as I believe it important to share a common understanding of the concept we are tryng to achieve. If you cannot identify the process you cannot use the six sigma terminology.
     
     
     

    0
    #158885

    Lebowski
    Participant

    GrayR,
    Do you have any idea what a tired post this is. We have seen a lot of you guys roll through here with the “we knew all about the tools” and “we have done this for years.” Here’s the issue. If you really did know and do everything you and all the other “it was better in the good old days” guys, why was industry so receptive to the Six Sigma process when it became visible? Management teams develop success models and they tend to stick with them. Obviously you weren’t part of someones success model.
    BTW if you could get you feelings off your sleeve you could find a lot of posts from Stan that offer solid advice.
    BTW2 what was the useful advice from your post. At this point there hasn’t been much demonstration of your skill sets either.
    Lebowski

    0
    #158887

    Mathematics
    Participant

    Ron,
    Sorry, but math is not the problem here. the departure and landing and pick-up of baggage could be aligned into a sequential customer experience of two interlocking processes. The rolled-throughput yield could be a way to calculate an overall sigma score.

    0
    #158903

    GrayR
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    Interesting how you have turned around my post.  My comments were not made to boast about the good old days, but to get through the muck that only a few posters have definitive knowledge on this subject.  One thing that I don’t have knowledge on is the development of Six Sigma at Motorola, and as I stated in my posting, that is something that I do respect and appreciate in insight.  As far as your other comments:
    1.  You didn’t see me talking about the good old days. Much of the statistical analysis we did then went to the company/plant statistician, and we got the results back in a week if we lucky. No graphs. But it was the best that was available.
    2.  Stat-based process improvement was around for many years before I started — do you think it was invented in the last 15 years?  In reality, there wasn’t a whole lot being done at that time; for one reason, it wasn’t easy to do.  At one point, Deming said that you need to be a statistician to process improvement (or something along those lines), and it was basically true at that time.  The ability to do the statistics much more quickly & accurately is one thing that has changed today.
    3.  Much of industry was very receptive to process improvement & statistically based improvement before Six Sigma. Quality engineers at the time were very receptive to these tools — look at the work that was done by ASQC over the years.  Yes, there were a lot of upper managers that didn’t believe in it — but look at the posters on this site, and you will see that is still a problem.  Motorola had to be doing statistical process improvement before Six Sigma — right? — if they weren’t receptive before, why would they have developed Six Sigma?  Statistically based improvement became widespread with Six Sigma  for a few reasons (#4) and at the same time there are now better statistical tools (software).
    4.  I admit that Six Sigma has provided me benefits (i.e., goes back to the respect issue that I mentioned earlier), and I use the process everyday. DMAIC has provided structure to the process, and makes the knowledge and analysis transferrable. Six Sigma has provided a recognizable name to a process that has made the process more visible. And this has helped convince some upper management to support it — unlike 20 years ago when they didn’t understand why you need to run a DOE.  Don’t take this as a negative question — but I would be interested in a list of items that make Six Sigma itself ‘better’ than what came before?  I have listed two: structure & name; and would be interested in more.  But statistical software and many analysis tools did not come with Six Sigma. 
    Also, another benefit that I have gotten from Six Sigma is that it has provided a very good income for me.
    5.  Also interesting that you obviously know about my lack of success.
    6. I will take my feelings off my sleeve.  I think Stan has provided good advice to the posters and this Forum.  I followed his comments on Shainin pretty closely. And I have disagreed with other posters on this site, and they have disagreed with me — its all part of the learning and transfer process. Everything else including the name-calling is BS.
    7.  I didn’t try to provide any useful advice on TPS in my posting.  If you worked at Toyota, I would be interested in hearing your experiences with TPS. And if you want to discuss TPS, then we can do that. My experience with lean goes back when parts of it were called JIT, cellular manufacturing, etc., before Womack named it lean.  And my ‘lack of success’ has included many implementations since then, most of them based on Womack’s model (flow, pull, etc.).  But Womack’s model isn’t the same as TPS. Stan also has posted about TPS, most of which I agree with.
    Regards.

    0
    #158915

    Toast
    Member

    There is more that isn’t new about SS.
    As someone with an accounting background we’re often asked to recommend fixes for poorly performing companies.
    Our approach is usually:
    – Define the business objective
    – Measure the deviations of finanancial performance
    – Analayse sources of loss
    – Improve performance by minimizing leakage
    – Control future losses
    What’s new about that – only one thing. Western companies did not apply this in a manifacturing context prior to SS. In fact their approach was selling price equals unit price plus profit.
    Only some Japanese companies used profit = market selling price minus unit costs!
    So is SS is unique?  – Yes. How much has it got to do with Mikel Harry, Richard Schroeder, Bill Smith, Mario Perez-Wilson  – nothing! Although it is true Bob Galvin gave Bill Smith the credit for SS.
    Now you watch Stan call me honey…. I wonder why? Could it be he is one of these people?
    Toast
     

    0
    #158916

    Craig
    Participant

    Toast,
    Are you saying that if A (cost) + B (profit) = C (Selling Price),
    then  B(profit) = C(Selling price) – A(Cost)?
    I think I learned this mathematical property in 3rd grade. If you think that the 4 names listed had nothing to do with Six Sigma, you need to find an accounting web site and try making some intelligent posts there.
     
     

    0
    #158917

    Jelly
    Participant

    Actually Mr./Ms. Toast’ posting is very accurate concerning cost, profit and selling price.  In the Western model, the selling price is based on the cost (which is considered ‘fixed’), and then the company adds on a desired profit.  This sets the price. This was standard practice for many years, and the reason that car prices increased every year.  Also the reason why auto companies were able to afford good benefit packages to its workers.
    In the Japanese model, the selling price is fixed by the market. In fact, it is actaully set at lower than market.  The profit is ‘fixed’, therefore, the company has to develop ways to identify and lower costs. While US auto companies did have some focus on cost improvement (there was always the opportunity to increase prices), the Japanese model forced the company to continually lower costs.
    These ideas are basic in Ohno’s and Shingo’s writings.  The methods cannot be manipulated using arithmetic properties.

    0
    #158918

    Toast
    Member

    Well done Jelly …
    As for Hacl I’m sure he is a better person than his Stan-like shadow!

    0
    #158924

    Craig
    Participant

    Toast,
    Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I don’t usually sound so harsh, but I don’t see how you can say that Harry, Shroeder, Smith and Perez-Wilson had nothing to do with Six Sigma. They all contributed to an extent and to varying degrees. To say that the contribution is a collective “none” is far from the truth.
    HACL

    0
    #158926

    Toast
    Member

    Ok – so educate us. What did they contribute? What data do you have to support your assertion – something you read!!!
    Let’s see if it’s not DMAIC was the no data shift?
    Why don’t you ask Praveen Gupta – the Nasa thead guy – he ought to know he was there! Were you?
    What a joke …

    0
    #158930

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    I have worked for and seen companies achieve Six Sigma levels …. these are not like your typical companies claiming to be Six Sigma yet only using six sigma toolkit for process improvement ….. these companies have all functions and and every process and parts at six sigma levels and eveything rolls up into a final six sigma score for the facility ….. which is at or above 3.4 long term …. !

    0
    #158932

    The miracles of six sigma
    Member

    M. Salim, I have recently seen a stork deliver a baby. This was not like your typical delivery of babies … the stork delivered the parts of the baby which were all at or above 3.4 sigmas and assembled the baby at the front door. The total baby was measured at a perfect final 6 sigma score. I am glad that so many diverse miracles can happen just by applying the six sigma toolkit!

    0
    #158933

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    well all parts of the baby don’t have to be at 6sigma level to have the almost perfect SS baby …. you can still have a SS level baby with some parts below the SS level …..

    0
    #158934

    The miracles of six sigma
    Member

    From the three previous posts it is obvious that the level of experience of our new MSA is well below the .5 level. Do you really think you’ll gain credibility on this site by adding that your educationally trivial title? We have seen PhDs stumble in here believing that their title would give them credibility. An MSA, you gotta be kidding me … .

    0
    #158937

    Craig
    Participant

    Toast,
    I worked at Motorola from 1985 to 2000. In the mid to late 80s, I was trained by Dr Harry and other members of his organization. 
     
    HACL

    0
    #158938

    Toast
    Member

    How about backing up your claims with some data.What country, what factory, what courses exactly? (PS: I know someone who worked at Motorola during the same period)

    0
    #158940

    DMAIC and that time of month
    Participant

    Where is the data that shows that you have the kind of authority to demand from people on this site to share their training/work experience in terms of times, dates and locations. Your whining little PMSing on this site is starting to get boring!!! In one other language “being a toast” means being a total deadbeat. You chose the right word to characterize yourself. Get together with Ramesh, you may want to share your little pacifiers.

    0
    #158941

    Mikel
    Member

    You have neither worked for nor seen COMPANIES achieve a six sigma level.

    0
    #158942

    Sigma score of babies
    Member

    But, he knows that babies can almost operate at a six sigma level. 

    0
    #158943

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    As you name suggests, people like you can either wag their tails or bark at others …. and neither will ever let you come close to 6Sigma …. so open up your mind and do some root cause analysis on your failures … I have already started the process for you …… and work on finding a corrective action for these issues and some day you might be able to come somewhere close to that dream of understanding  what 6Sigma is about ….

    0
    #158944

    Notbuyingit
    Participant

    Just for the record, I believe that the measurement of a sigma level on takeoff & landing is a skewed metric.  What your metric doesn’t include is the population of all aircraft.  It only includes the ones that take-off and land safely.  It does not appear it includes aircraft that have to land early due to mechanical failure or in-flight shutdown.
    That would be the equivalent of measuring how many cars drive defect free selected only from the population of cars that ultimately get to their destination.  You have to analyze what happens in between because it all represents a risk to passenger safety.  The service level from most aircraft is horrid as it has to be since 90% of the companies that supply aircraft components operate at nowhere near a 6 sigma level.    Don’t believe me?  Work in the industry a while.

    0
    #158945

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    I have worked for an aircraft parts manufacturer and agree that some are no where near 6-Sigma levels …. but we are again forgetting that all parts dont have to be at SS level for the aircraft or the flight to be at SS level …. and we are also forgetting the redundancy or backups in aircrafts which ensure the reliability of the aircraft at a very high level ….. so when you talk about a safe flight then dont forget that it is made possible by these sub-SS components having several backups ensuring the flight is at SS-Level !!!

    0
    #158946

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Jelly,
    I agree fully with you that the model has changed to the market place defining the price. A lot of companies don’t realize it and even more companies do not believe it but that is causing various industries to shake out.
    Where I have an issue is that regardless of it being Western thought or the writing of Ohno and Shingo’s writing it is the internet that has made this thing real. Regardless of what a company chooses to believe they compete on a global market because even using that antiquated term of “third world country” there is internet accessibility.
    Just my opinion.
     

    0
    #158947

    Craig
    Participant

    Country: USA
    Factory: Motorola Government Electronics Group, Scottsdale AZ
    Course: Six Sigma Producibility Analysis and Process Characterization. I had several classes along these lines from Harry, Lawson, and the rest of the organization.
    Also, while in Boynton Beach Florida (Motorola Paging) in 1993, my Process Engineers were being trained on Mario Perez-Wilson methodologies.
    I am not a “groupie” of any of the people you mentioned. But to say that they had nothing to do with Six Sigma is a stretch my friend.
     

    0
    #158950

    Notbuyingit
    Participant

    I will agree that the redundancy helps to improve the quality of flights, however I would still like to know whether the “7 sigma” process level for takeoff and landing looked solely at whether an aircraft landed or crashed or whether it included data on systems which failed while the aircraft was in flight.

    0
    #158951

    aravind
    Participant

    Hai,
    TVS Fasterners company supplying products to Japan have not produced a defect for last 3 yrs. Is that not a 6 sigma effort
     
    rgds
    aravind

    0
    #158955

    bbusa
    Participant

    “Not produced”  OR “not supplied” ?
    bbusa
     

    0
    #158958

    Toast
    Member

    OK – now that I can see I’m not wasting my time and, unlike many others on this site, you’re speaking with some creditability, let me ask you this:
    If you accept the view of most quality professionals that there is very little new in Six Sigma, including the DMAIC process – as I pointed out in my recent post –  what exactly did those guys contribute?
    the belt system, the data less shift? What else – please spell it out
    PS: By the way, this is not a demand, but I assumed the purpose of this forum is to exchange views, whether idiotic or not.
    BTW do you really believe I chose my pseudonyn randomly, without understanding the implication. You seem to be able to both ackowledge and ignore the obvious both at the same time. My guess is you learnt that from Harry  – the Bucking Bull rider!

    0
    #158960

    Ron
    Member

    Now you are limiting the porocess to the process that produces fasteners. What about other proceeses within this company such as the purchasing process, the HR process.
    By the way I believe you mean that they haven’t shipped adefective part. But I cannot believe that a defect has not surfaced in their processes.
     

    0
    #158965

    Credibility?
    Participant

    Toast, you do you really assume that you have “credibility”? With every post you are losing more and more of it especially given your unprofessioal writing style and your inability to control your emotions. I am not even talking about the trivial stuff that you talk about and that can be looked up in every six sigma pocket book. Much ado, but not much substance to the back up of your claim of “credibility”. But keep on going, it is much fun to see a “credible expert” lose his temper over a metaphysical question such as “Is anybody really six-sigma capable”. Thanks for the laughters!  

    0
    #158966

    Chen
    Participant

    Looks like you have the same affliction. Try looking in the mirror sometime.

    0
    #158968

    Craig
    Participant

    Toast,
    If I were to estimate what I “learnt” from Harry, it would be about 1/500th of my skills & expertise. This does not imply anything about Mr Harry, but just serves to calibrate your understanding.
    I’d say my knowledge base boils down to 20% Motorola University, 30% Graduate statistics and I.E. classes, and 50% hands on experience.
    Since you are the “all knowing” one, let me ask you these questions:
    1) Who coined the phrase “Six Sigma Quality”?
    2) What company changed their culture and emabarked on methodologies to strive for Six Sigma Quality?
    3) Under whose name do you find the earliest publications on Six Sigma?
    4) What individuals from the company in question 2 were involved in the original Six Sigma deployments at Allied Signal and GE?
    5) Do you think that we would even be having this discussion if items 1 through 4 didn’t take place?
    If your post had said “how much did Harry, Shroeder, Perez-Wilson, and Smith have to do with creating SPC or DOE……Nothing”, then I would have been in agreement with you. Why don’t you find out who coined the word “plumber” and discredit him or her because they didn’t invent the pipe wrench?
    Please explain who did invent Six Sigma rather than rattling-off who didn’t invent it.

    0
    #158969

    Jose Edward
    Participant

    Yes there are processes that are Six Sigma.  A few hours of simple Internet search will reveal a large amount of real data about many processes.  A few calculations will make this data to sigma values or DPMO or other common measure you desire.  I prefer sigma values and DPMO to show capability for common denominator.  The common denominator is an opportunity.
    Some of the Internet data will point you to highly capable processes like NC milling machines making parts with large tolerances.  These type of processes are very often greater than six sigma.  You will also find processes that are substantially less than 3 sigma.  The average is around 3 to 4 sigma. 
    Be wary of the experts on this site.  Some seem to know what they are doing but others only talk from their back side and try to offend you if you do not agree with what they say.  Some are bright young people and others are grouchy old men that should just retire and go away.  The grumpy ones will mislead you sometimes to try and make you angry and feel bad so get your own data from where you work and the Internet and draw your own conclusions.  I applogize for my poor grammer but English is my third language.
    These are my thoughts,
    Jose Edwards

    0
    #158971

    I know, I know, cal on me
    Participant

    1) Motorola – Bill Smith specifically2) Motorola3) Motorola – specifially Smith, Harry, Stewart and Lawson4) Rich Schroeder (VP at Allied and founder of SS Academy – how
    does that work?) hired Mikel Harry. Harry hired former Motorolans
    Steve Zingraf and Gary Cone, Zinkgraf brings Antis, Cone bring
    Carnell. A lot of non Motorolans were there as well, most notably
    Bill Ross.5) No.Do I get a prize?

    0
    #158972

    Craig
    Participant

    You get the prize only if Toast forks it over.
    Did any of these people have ANYTHING to do with Six Sigma? I would have to say YES.
     

    0
    #158973

    Non issue
    Participant

    Jose,
    You’re dealing with a non-issue: The question is if the sigma score calculation is appropriate for measurements at a structural rather than a process level. The simple answer is: no. It was never intended to measure at the firm level.
    BTW, Du bist nicht der einzige, der mehrere Sprachen spricht. Il y a d’autres ice qui parlent plusieurs langues. Helemaal!

    0
    #158983

    mcintosh
    Participant

    It seemed a simple question to me. Who contributed what?

    0
    #158985

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Interesting discussion!
    First, is there any Six Sigma capable company? None of the Six Sigma practiciting company measures and sets goals to achieve Six Sigma level performance, so there is a no chance of being one. Besides, customer requirements are dynamic, so it would be difficult to be at Six Sigma level as an entire company, unless the company operates only one process! Six Sigma capable company may not have companya-wide 3.4 PPM defect rate, however, if everyone is improving the process aggressively towards virtual perfection, one may be closest to being called the Six Sigma capable company.
    However, it is not uncommon for a company to have some processes operating at the Six Sigma level capability, i.e., pockets of excellence. But most of these processes are trivial ones. It is difficult to find a critical industrial proecss operating at Six Sigma level, except the process of plane taking off or landing, not the entire flying exprience.
    Regarding my ‘being there’ when Six Sigma was developed, I worked with Bill June 1986 – 89, and sporadically after that for another five years. During that time I did not hear many of the names listed here for their contribution. Six Sigma was Bill Smith’s idea. As to the new things in Six Sigma, it is the process of developing awareness to aggregate performance, highlighting first pass yield, aiming at virtual perfection for customer critical requirements, accelerating improvement, and using common terminology of improvement. The most important observation, in my opinion, was that field failures, perceived as reliability failures, were escaping manufacturing defects.
    Academically there may not be many or any new things, but practically Bill provided new perspectives to improvement.
    As far as I know, Bill did not create belts, DMAIC, or many of the complexities of Six Sigma. Having said that DMAIC looked similar to the four or five phase approach used in one of the Motorola University courses on process improvement.
    His Six Steps to Six Sigma were:
    1) know what you do, 2) who do you do for, 3) what you need, 4) how you do it, 5) mistake-proof it, and 6) continually improve towards virtual perfection.
    Best,
    praveen

    0
    #158986

    Automatic loopback
    Participant

    Is there any way that this site could create an automatic loopback to Praveen’s response whenever this question comes up? This same question comes up over and over and over and over and over …

    0
    #158987

    Chen
    Participant

    Excellent answer .. thank you!

    0
    #158990

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    I do not agree with your first comment ……. Yes, companies do set goals and measure to see if they are at six sigma level …. not having one score for the entire company is something different and having a sigma level for programs or facilities or where the product or service is at SS level is another …. and yes you can run and achieve a program at six sigma level …. do all the businesses within a company achieve this success …. probabaly not ……. if you are claiming that a company’s jet engine is at SS level or above then you don’t really care what sigma level that same company’s light bulb facility is at ……… if the company on the whole has a method to measure and set goals  to achieve six sigma level across all businesses and functions and does it successfully then it sure is at Six Sigma Level (atleast for the programs which achieve that level) …. GE is a very good example !

    0
    #158993

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Praveen Gupta,
    Lets be a little more specific than “being there.” That makes it sound like you were all over Motorola and you were not. Bill Smith came from Comm so I assume that is where you were. I never saw you or heard of you around Government or Automotive and like I said previously Mario was driving Semiconductor.

    0
    #158998

    NO_They_Aren’t
    Participant

    Are you suggesting that GE is a good example of measuring Sigma Levels accross all business units and collectively reporting a company sigma level?  Please clarify.

    0
    #159003

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Mike, You are right. I was in the comm sector 86-89, where the Six Sigma concept was being developed by Bill Smith.
    praveen

    0
    #159004

    karl
    Participant

    HaCl:Yes, but does anyone trust your judgement anymore. Toast made a slip – big deal. I bet you can’t work out what he does for a living and if English is his first language!A quick search reveals you spent 10 years looking after SPC charts – it shows!Karl

    0
    #159005

    Mikel
    Member

    Praveen,
    Conjured any sigma levels lately?
    You only happened to be in the same place as Bill Smith and have been cashing in on it with you trivial point of view.
    You had no impact at Moto during the heydays of the culture change. You know it and so does all that were involved.

    0
    #159006

    Lombard
    Participant

    ?
    What do you mean ‘you are right?’
    ?
    You were in comm, where Bill Smith developed what most people believe existed all along – except for the shift.
    ?
    Or, did Mario drive semiconductor – whatever that means!
    ?
    What did Mario come up with?
    ?
    By the way, I’ve read your recent book – in it you state something different.C’mon now, let’s have the truth. You know you’ll feel good :-)Regards,
    Pierre

    0
    #159007

    howe
    Participant

    Credibility:How do you know what Toast’s emotional state is? It sounds like he or she is having a good laugh at your expense.But I can see his/her point – perhaps you can’t.I’ve read many posts by professionals on this forum claiming there isn’t much new in Six Sigma – if this is true, why criticize Harry’s shift, which definitely is new.

    0
    #159012

    Chad Taylor
    Participant

    GE has ZERO processes at Six Sigma Level, This includes on time delivery of light bulbs. You are not taking into account that GE’s field service repair on newly installed jet engines is one of the highest in the industry.

    0
    #159013

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Stan:
    I was not that old as you are thinking. You must have a lot more gray hair than I have. I was three years out of school, lucky enough to work on Six Sigma without knowing how big it was going to be. I was not changing Motorola culture like you or some others might be, but I was trying to make “Small Wins to Six Simga” the first four Six Sigma projects, and the “High Five” DFSS project in Schaumburg work. For your information, one of my successful Six Sigma project, completed in 1988′ was published in Quality Engineering in 1990, which was also the success story used in the Design for Manufacturing course. You can buy it from ASQ Press today!
    You are right, I was not making the noise, but I was able to absorb it from all directions. I was and am still learning.
    Thanks for your unusally mild comments!
    Praveen

    0
    #159014

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Pierre:
    1981 – 86, I used to work in Semiconductor Sector, and Pre-control was the program of the time. I am sure I do not know about everybody at Motorola, but I was aware, reading and observing happenings in different parts of Motorola including my visit to 52nd St. and other plants in 1984-85 in Scottsdale, AZ. Bob Galvin himself has said that Six Sigma was developed by Bill Smith in Comm Sector.
    I had a great learning time at Motorola in my first job. Actually, I spoke today with one my first role model Manager at Freescale, previously called Motorola after 21 years. It was exciting.
    In any case, I do not understand what we are trying to prove who did what. I just answered one the messages, not proving anything wrong or right. There are many successful, accomplished, and brilliant professionals all listed or otherwise here. I respect them all.
    No Mas!
    Praveen

    0
    #159015

    M. Salim MSA
    Participant

    You are talking as if you own GE …. and everyone reports to you on their six sigma scorecards …. by the way that’s the tool used to measure sigma level and roll it up into one measurement for the program !

    0
    #159017

    Chad Taylor
    Participant

    M Salim,
    Got anymore genious information for me? Please explain what you mean by “Roll it up”?????????? 
    BTW-GE’s score dropped three points from 1995 to 1996, its first year of implementation; since implementation, GE has yet to match its 1995 score and has exceeded the industry average only in 2001. Manufacturing Engineering Magazine

    0
    #159021

    Congratulations
    Participant

    Praveen, congratulations to the publication of your latest book! It’s definitely more insightful to the professionals that you mentioned in your previous post than this gossip about who did what and when at the early days of Motorola’s implementation of six sigma.

    0
    #159022

    Risso
    Member

    Gossip or not, I found it interesting.

    0
    #159024

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Who is  the  publisher?

    0
    #159026

    Craig
    Participant

    Congratulations….you can thank Mr Toast about all the gossip in this thread. Sometimes when some uninformed person posts inaccurate details in this forum, the community deserves a little clarification. It is better than sitting back and watching!
     

    0
    #159032

    M. Salim DA
    Participant

    I disagree with your answers 1 and 4.

    0
    #159033

    Marshall
    Participant

    You still haven’t worked it out yet have you. I’m not surprised – Mr. Toast has a quirky sense of humour and is about 1 mile over your head.Let me give you a clue – what was the subject about?

    0
    #159034

    Mikel
    Member

    I missed that you wanted to be called honey. I reserve that for those I feel bring a bias to the table. I agree with what you said, so I will not be calling you honey or anything weirder that toast (what kind of name is that?)
    And no, I am not one of the people on your list.
    What is good about SS is that a lot of people have been given the opportunity to practice these old tools that a lot of people know about.
    Just back off on HACL, he is a good guy. I am the jerk here not him.

    0
    #159041

    Marshall
    Participant

    We don’t consider you a jerk Stan, which is why we’ll back off.Sayonara …

    0
    #159058

    Craig
    Participant

    Marshall,
    I anxiously wait the answer to the riddle. It may be 1 mile over my head, so please explain in laymens terms!

    0
    #159074

    quelqu’un
    Participant

    Toast,
    Do you really want to know what all the people who claimed to be the six sigma developers did for six sigma?
    I know and I can provide supporting data.  But, then what?  Will someone write an article with all of these supporting data and set the record straight.  …and who would that be.  Toast, Stan, or Michael Cryer.
    I have it and I can deliver, but lets talk, what next.
    Please reply.

    0
    #159078

    Jemand
    Participant

    Quelqu’un, ich weiss nicht, was soll es bedeuten :-)))).

    0
    #159087

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Warum?

    0
    #159089

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    This  is  ZD approach?

    0
    #159090

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Wonderbar?

    0
    #159099

    Wild Bill
    Member

    Not 6-sigma ~ but we’re close.  I’m proud to say that my employer, a large US defense contractor, has publically advertised and has shown our customers that repeatable software development processes as high as 5.9-sigma capability have been obtained at various world-wide locations and divisions. 
    That is not to say that all products are defect-free or that processes are always guaranteed to operate the same. Most customers cannot afford and/or do not need that level of quality! Our ‘typical’ software products are in the 1.5 to 2 million lines-of-code (LOC) range, backed up with software inspection and test records that show from 20 to 40 DPMO. 
    My employer is certified by an independent 3rd party, internationally respected registrars, to have a World Class quality system (AS-9100) as well as a systems engineering/ software development process via SCAMPI assessments, in the CMMI, Level 4/5 ranges. 
    Obtaining this capability has taken years of continued, intense  ~ and expensive ~ process improvement initiatives.  As shown by our most recent Corporate profit statements, continued process improvements supported by highest level executive management as well as continued investment is worth every penny. 
    Our suppliers also must have a quality system and process supportive of our needs. Supplier capability and/or readiness necessary to support our needs may vary, based upon many procurement factors.
     

    0
    #159100

    Annie Oakley
    Participant

    Bill,This sounds very impressive.There are many things you say here that are contridictory of being
    Six Sigma capable. First you speak of defects at inspection, isn’t Six Sigma about total
    defects in a process? Second you talk about running a defect free process but only for
    those who can afford it; You telling us it is cheaper to run a
    process with great ineffiencies? And all those certifications? Wow! And they allow you to run your
    process efficient when the customer can afford it and inefficient
    when the customer can’t afford it?I have no doubt that you have a tremendous improvement in your
    software development process over what you had a decade ago,
    but 5.9 sigma? Who are you trying to kid? Tell us about how these
    improvement alllow you to develop quicker and hit your quicker
    target dates 100%.

    0
    #159101

    Jemand
    Participant

    Darum.

    0
    #159115

    Brandon
    Participant

    Wild Bill – thank you for your recent post. Imagine that – an informative post pertinent to the original question.It’s refreshing to see a contribution.

    0
    #159119

    Annie
    Participant

    Brandon,
    I agree that it’s great that Bill tried to answer the actual question, but he demonstrated he does not even understand the basic premise of 6 sigma (all the defects vs inspection points).

    0
    #159120

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Hitachi plus Bill  Smith?

    0
    #159121

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Are you  serious?

    0
    #159123

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    I  suggest  the  title  for  your  next  book:The Real History  of  SS?

    0
    #159125

    Annie
    Participant

    Very. Are you?

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 147 total)

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