iSixSigma

Is anybody really six-sigma capable?

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

Viewing 47 posts - 101 through 147 (of 147 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #159126

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    No
    It  can’t  be  true?

    0
    #159127

    Orlando
    Participant

    from customer perspective there is many products on the market that are six sigma, like for example airplane or jet turbines, many cel phones (particulary Nokia), 
    however I am not sure if within a company there is a Six Sigma process, as a process itself.
     
     

    0
    #159133

    GIGO
    Participant

    Agreed, Bill did a great job at enthusiastically answering a non-sensical question. There might be a good reason why there is a waste of 80 posts: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Glad to see that geniuses like Bill, Brandon and Annie are still seriously attempting to answer that question. Great job!

    0
    #159134

    Mikel
    Member

    Orlando,
    I doubt there are many six sigma products as measured by the customer. Certainly a Nokia phone is not one of them – they have over a 1% out of box failure rate. Boeing has never delivered a defect free plane.
    Where do you get your data?

    0
    #159135

    Wild Bill
    Member

    Anne:
    Wow! Am I happy that my customer doesn’t agree…
    Bill

    0
    #159136

    Annie
    Participant

    Doesn’t agree with what?
    I questioned several of your statements with respect to what a six sigma process looks like. Which one does your customer have an opinion about?

    0
    #159137

    Wild Bill
    Member

    Zero defect aircraft could also mean that the customer has granted a concession to waiver descrepancies.  Whats more important, delivering the aircraft customers need or delivering zero defects?

    0
    #159138

    Outch
    Participant

    Ouch, that hurts “Whats more important, delivering the aircraft customers need or delivering zero defects?”
    still wondering how six sigma defines defect? hm, let’s look up … CTQ? Cutest faux-pas that I’ve seen on this site. Annie, keep on hammering :-).

    0
    #159139

    Mikel
    Member

    What is not important is putting some artificial sigma number on a process that has defects.
    Your example is an interesting one. A concession is not a defect?
    Do you work in government contracting?

    0
    #159142

    Wild Bill
    Member

    Annie:
    My original point was about process improvements and success. 
    A business needs success regardless of it tools and methods.  Six-sigma is not mandatory for success if you can satisfy the customer to the point where agreed contract consideration is paid. 
    IMHO, Six-sigma is about perfection that our customer does not need to worry about, provided our products satisfy their intended use.  Please reply if additional information or clarification is needed about successful process improvements with 6-sigma concepts.  Should this be a separate forum?
    Warmest regards… Wild Bill

    0
    #159143

    Can We Kill this discussion?
    Participant

    There are zero 6 sigma level products in the world. Each sector may have pockets of manufacturing/service excellence but the collective of the whole process is simply not there. Anyone who believes that it is needs a serious reality check.
    I have seen process where someone would state that the process was running at a six sigma level. Example you say? Of course…… Some older manufacturing simply had tolerances that were at a level of the technology that was producing those products. For example a 1970’s model acme screw machine could probably hold a tolerance of + .005″ pretty easy. Todays newer CNC machines can hold tolerances of + .001 pretty easy. Yes the machining was much better, but guess what? The down stream defect rate never changed, or only slightly better. Because the old specification needed to be adjusted to compensate. Sigma levels will then come back to a closer balance throughout the process. I think you see where I’m going with this.
    If your running a process and reporting that you are sending Six Sigma level product to your customer, then your doing your customer a huge in justice.
     
     

    0
    #159144

    Wild Bill
    Member

    I agree.  This discussion ‘flame’ is feeding upon itself.   If there are 6 sigma level products in the world, I’ve not seen an example, nor can I think of why I should want to see it! 
    I also agree that pockets of manufacturing/service excellence exist but collective of the whole process is simply not there. There are however, examples of working toward process improvement.
    Regards…

    0
    #159147

    Wild Bill
    Member

    Stan:
    Yes, I do work for the world’s largest defence contractor and yes, a concession is a defect with a contractual resolution.
    If a customer ‘owns’ the original requirement, do they not ‘own’ a right to grant a concession?
    Regards: Bill

    0
    #159150

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Omashi Sabachi,
    That is an interesting response. Why do you believe that the real history would be known to someone who operated at Comm? Basically the MAIC came from the Government Group. The 6 step approach came from Comm and was pretty much the Kumbiya approach to process improvement.
    There was no one spot that was the one and only source of this thing.

    0
    #159156

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Karl,
    For the most part I really don’t have much interest in this thread. I do have an issue with your last comment. I worked at Motorola with HACL and he did much more than look after control charts.
    First I do not know anyone that understands GDT better or even close to as well as he does. He understands at an academic and pragmatic level the various tools that are used in Six Sigma. I am not sure where you got that comment but it is completely incorrect.
    Regards

    0
    #159158

    Gomes
    Participant

    I am curious to know who came out with the erroneous name six sigma for something that should be called twelve sigma (+ or – six sigma within spec).  Six sigma was + or – three with spec.  What that Bill Smith the quality dude?

    0
    #159172

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Thank You
    Valid  point,then  I  suggest  that  some  authors (including  yourself) should  think  seriously  to  write  “the  story  of SS”.It is  time?

    0
    #159173

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Agree
    I  believe it  is because  Six  Sigma is  more  ‘Sexy”?

    0
    #159179

    Mikel
    Member

    No doubt. But it is still a defect with considerable cost with respect to
    time and resource. It should be counted, analyzed, and with the use
    of some prioritzation method, scheduled for resolution.

    0
    #159180

    Idisagree
    Participant

    It is a fallacy to think that inspection does not occur in a Six Sigma process.  We all agree that you can’t inspect quality into the process, however if there is no inspection how can you maintain a measurement on your Sigma level?  Sure the inspection may move upstream to monitor a process input rather than an output, sure it may be done online instead of offline by a traditional QC department, but guaranteed you have to have a measurement somewhere and a rose by any other name…
    As far as the defect level the customer is willing to accept there is also some validity to what Wild Bill states.  As you approach Six Sigma you very well may reach a point of diminishing returns.  If the dollars neccessary to completely eliminate a defect are greater than the COQ of the defect itself does it make justifiable business sense to eliminate the defect?  As you approach world class levels of quality this begins to become a major concern.
    That however is all I can side with Wild Bill on.  I severly doubt that his process performs as well as he suggests and I know from experience that AS9100 certification doesn’t mean squat.  This all ties into the metrics of Six Sigma and how you measure your DPMO.  You could classify every keystroke or every line of code as a Defect Opportunity and your process sigma would look stellar, but from the customers perspective the opportunity is the deliverable and likely the sigma viewed from this perspective is not as good as claimed.  Also keep in mind 40 DPM, 20 DPM, 1 DPM it just takes 1 critical defect to bring down an aircraft.  Nice job patting yourself on the back, try not to break your arm.

    0
    #159182

    Mikel
    Member

    Mr Disagreeable,I generally agree with you, but I wonder why you think there is value
    in maintaining a measurement of your Sigma level.The point of diminishing returns in an interesting theoretical
    discussion but I’ll bet you have never seen the company that could not
    find a place to focus resources that would give a positive ROI. I
    haven’t.

    0
    #159183

    Stannie
    Member

    It was interesting to see Bill go from the testosterone laiden bluster of
    5.9 sigma to a more rational confessions later in the day.I do believe he is working in a place where they are actively trying to
    improve. At the end of the day, that’s all that’s important.

    0
    #159196

    Orlando
    Participant

    Stan,
    I agree, what I meant is that from the customer perspective (final user) there is a lot of products that may be six sigma, but NOT form a company process perspective.
    I agree Boeing has never deliver a defect free plane, however from the passanger perspective it seems a six sigma product,
    another example a TV that can be in place 10 years or more, a microwave oven same case, etc.
    Many times you throw away a product that actually never fails, however you update with the latest one, in that perspective we as a customers got a defect free product.
     

    0
    #159197

    Orlando
    Participant

    Also its important not to forget that its impportant to understand the CTC.
    For example lest take the cel phones, most of the cel phones user used their cel phone no more than two years. The reason? many other brand new products available waiting for us to make an upgrade which most of the times happend, we do the upgrade!!.
    so from customer perspective if you buy a cel phone and works ok within the period of time you are going to used it (ltes said 2 years) you wont be able to see the defects that happend to that phone 6 months later (on month 30). Now maybe the company has a lot of rework and defects within their process (no six sigma) but they deliver a good product from customer perspective.
     

    0
    #159210

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Omashi Sabachi,
    Here is the trouble with writing a history. Any history. I was told once that “the way we see the world is that it is like we are in a play and we all see ourselves as the star of the play.” That makes it difficult for anyone who was part of the history to accurately portray it. There are things that we know did and did not happen. Peoples perception concerning the circumstances around those facts is where the personal bias comes into play. I am not sure we can ever get a truely accurate picture of everything that happened and I am not sure it is really important. The idea of Six Sigma today is much different than it was in 1988 when I first became aware of it at Motorola. It is different than it was when we were consulting at Allied Signal and GE and it is different now. Knowing the details to the nth degree won’t change what we are doing today.
    The only time I have an issue when it relates to the history is when people take credit for the work that others have done. That is probably the only issue I ever had working for Motorola. I enjoyed the company and never felt the need to apologize to anyone for the services and products we produced. The glory grabs were the unpleasant side. As an example there is a person who has a published paper with just their name on it. It was done at Motorola by 5 people and more than one of them posts on this site. Both of us have a copy of the original engineering report that closed out the project and it carries the names of all 5 (actually six because a RAT had to be added for political reasons). It was actually published repeatedly without the people who actually did the work. That was one of those early events that sensitizes your reaction to that type of behavior.
    I would much prefer to see the history written by someone who had no vested interest, was actually objective, and took the time to talk to all the people involved not just the ones that claimed to be the only ones involved.
    Just my opinion.
    Good luck

    0
    #159211

    igetit
    Participant

    Mike Carnell, two words come to mind after reading your post.  
    BAD ASS 

    0
    #159212

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Idisagree,
    “As far as the defect level the customer is willing to accept there is also some validity to what Wild Bill states.”
    I have seen this occur repatedly. We went through this when one US car manufacturer decided to measure their SQE’s on how many changes were implemented after the launch. It affected the bonus so were went from engineering changes to deviations. I had a deviation on one product that was good for 9 years. Driving the wrong behavior with money.
    When you get into these situations you no longer have one defect you have two. There is the defect of the supplier agreeing to produce something they could not produce. If you don’t learn from that it will happen again.
    You also have the defect of the customer designing something that either could not be produced or did not work as expected.
    Both situations are an opportunity to improve.
    Either way if you shrug your shoulders and say “hey the customer accepted it.” then you will walk right back into that same situation again. That will generate all the NVA chaos that comes from looking for concessions, deviations or whatever system that has been devised to cover up a defective design process.
    The up side is that if you like doing DMAIC projects this is one way to assure yourself you will never need DFSS. You see all these post about root cause and how often do you see a DMAIC project chased all the way beack to the design process. That is where the root cause has to lie by definition.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #159213

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    Your comments go right to the heart of what people do and do not understand about the concepts of process control and process knowledge. If I know what does and does not make a product function then I know what to control versus what not to control. That does move the test and inspection up stream until the same knowledge is gained there and those parameters are/ may be controlled with SPC, automation, mistakeproofing, etc.
    The real test of their faith is if they are willing to pull test and inspection and run with what they are supposed to have learned.
    Leave it in and you have a belt and suspenders.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #159214

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    igetit,
    I am assuming that is good. Thank you.
    Regards

    0
    #159218

    Correction on Historiography
    Participant

    Mike,
    You may want to change your opinion on the historian’s involvement with the “historia” that they narrate. Historians from Herodotus to Thycidides, Polybius, Vidukund etc onwards were intimately involved with their “historia”. Thycidides was a general of the Athenean army, Polybius was the travelling companion of Scipio Aemilianus, the most notable general of his days. Vidukind was counselor to the daughter of the emperor Otto etc. So, feel free to write your history. You’re in good companion as participant and eye-witness of the Six Sigma. As a matter of fact, you’re in a better position than any “objective outsider”. … Some people may or may not like you. Thucydides was banned from Athens which gave him the incentive and the time to write his history of the Peloponnesian war. He still established the field of political history. History is about truth-finding. Truth-finding according to Thucydides requires eye-witnesses … :-)))).

    0
    #159219

    Jim Ace
    Participant

    Mike Carnell,
     
    The history of six sigma has been well documented in several highly credible books and papers.  While each of these works sets forth the history of six sigma, minor variations do exist from author to author.  However, the overall theme and key contributors seem to be quite clear.
     
    In a recent publication related to this subject, the MIT Sloan School of Business published the results of their investigation into the birth of six sigma and the principal innovators behind this movement.  The results of this highly credible investigation are contained in a well documented publication titled “How Management Innovation Happens,” authored by Julian Birkinshaw and Michael Mol, Summer 2006 Vol. 47 No. 4.  This publication cites Bill Smith and Mikel Harry as the primary innovators of Six Sigma.  They credit Bill Smith with the “Internal Validation” of six sigma and Mikel Harry with “External Validation.”  Other big innovations in industry were also studied and reported on in like manner.
     
    The cited publication can be obtained at:
     
    http://www.viewswire.com/report_dl.asp?mode=fi&fi=1770754762.PDF&rf=0
     
    Jim Ace

    0
    #159220

    Historiography
    Participant

    Jim Ace,
    Are you kidding us here? Are we to believe that the four-stage model of the two authors is equivalent to a historiographically sound “history of six sigma”. Who do you think is qualified as a historian at the  MIT school of business publication to verify the truth of a “history of six sigma” (which in the first place is based on a literature review, i.e. secondary sources). In addition, the authors that you mention are developing a model and use six sigma as a case study to support their model. There’s nothing wrong with that. But using social psychological criteria of internal vs. external validity to support a credible history of six sigma … Come on. Please go through the process of “academic” publication once in your life and then come tell us that that is “sound historical research”. You’re obviously neither familiar with the business of academic publication in business nor in the discipline of history :-).

    0
    #159221

    Historiography
    Participant

    Here’s a link to the abstract of that infamously sound history of six sigma that works. Sorry, Jim Ace, but you are so naive :-))))).
    http://www.manyworlds.com/default.aspx?from=/exploreCO.aspx&coid=CO713061795782

    0
    #159222

    Historiography
    Participant

    Here’s the first kick. Birkinshaw and Mol base their “well documented” history of Six Sigma on the following citation, (p. 81):
    J. Folaron, “The Evolution of Six Sigma”, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, August 2003, 38 – 44. (oops, that’s a miraculous loopback :-).
    The extremely well researched passages on the history of six sigma is as follows”
    “A third type of dissatisfaction that can lead to innovation is the nagging operational problem. This is best exemplified by Motorola’s development of the Six Sigma methodology for controlling the quality of a manufacturing operation. This innovation can be traced back to the concept of zero defects proposed by Motorola quality manager Bill Smith in 1985 and “the Six Sigma Quality Program” that CEO Bob Galvin subsequently initiated in January 1987. But the inspiration for Smith’s idea was not a specific problem facing the company; instead, the methodlogy was developed as part of an ongoing drive for excellence in manufacturing quality that had been in palce since Galvin became CEO in 1981. Motorola, like many Western companies at the time, was struggling to keep up with the quality levels produced by the Japanese competitors. Six Sigma was revolutionary in its consequences for Motorola and for many other companies, but is was evolutionary in its origin” (p. 84).
    The last piece of the history of six sigma reads as follows:
    “A second common source of external validation is the consulting organization (…). Six Sigma was successful inside Motorola, but it only received external attention when Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder, two Motorola executives, created a specialized consultancy operation to sell their methodology to other companies” (citation: Adams, Gupta and Wilson “Six Sigma Deployement” (Burlington, Massachusetts: Butterworth, Heinemann. 2003).
    Wow, this is rich, highly well researched, nuanced and well documented historical work :-))))))).

    0
    #159224

    Jim Ace
    Participant

    Historiography,
    No doubt that your incredible powers for recognizing and properly documenting the truth goes far beyond my insignificant skills to capture the truth.  Without reservation I stand in awe of your superior powers to deduce the truth and create world class documentation.  Without question, many of the world’s significant events could have been better described by you. 
    Sir, my hat is off to you in full recognition of your superior intellect, skills, and abilities.  And what a tremendous platform you have choosen!  iSixSigma, the place where all world-class researchers go for the truth.  This forum surely must be world renowned and widely recognized as a place where the truth is sure to be documented, cross-referenced, peer reviewed and certified to carry no bias. 
    By the way, since my last posting, I did some secondary research (as you call it) on your cohort Mike Carnell and the history of six sigma.  Strange thing, I could not find anything connecting him to the history of six sigma, other than by his own words “I was there.”  A diligent exploration of this forum (using the search feature) did produce a few spalshes for Mr. Carnell’s involvement with six sigma, but they were all of his own accounting and centered largely around pocess level stuff and nothing really strategic or innovative. 
    Like all the soldiers honorably serving us in Iraq, they too can say “I was there,” but I seriously doubt the common soldier could create publish a full and unbiased historical documentation of “The War in Iraq,” especially based on their personal experiences in the trenches.  Certainly, Mike Carnell is no Colen Powell, but he does seem to be a good trench soldier in the war on variation.  My compliments to his application skills and six sigma knowledge.
    Jim Ace

    0
    #159227

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Out-standing  comment.So  somebody should  have  the  courage and  knowledge  to  start  this  project.I  should  have  the  credit?

    0
    #159228

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Disagree

    0
    #159229

    Anonymous
    Participant

    Hey Hey Hey guys
    Come back to the original question or stop wasting the time inflating and deflating egos   of  others .
     

    0
    #159231

    History of Deceit?
    Participant

    “received external attention when Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder, two Motorola executives, created a specialized consultancy operation to sell their methodology to other companies”
    How can a credible history miss the fact that Schroeder was inside Allied when Harry sold the contract to him? Talk about a loopback!

    0
    #159233

    Historiography
    Participant

    Jim Ace, … I hope you have a great week-end.

    0
    #159234

    Historiogrpahy
    Participant

    History of Deceit, according to Jim Ace we have stand in awe before the authority of two anyonymous expert readers at MIT. I rest my case :-)))).

    0
    #159236

    Jim Ace
    Participant

    Historiogrpahy, your poorly worded digs does little to change the facts.  Perhaps you feel the need to minimize or discredit my reference, that’s OK, but everyone knows that MIT does not suppport poor research.  I do not know the authors of the referenced publication, but I do know that MIT is very careful about what it allows to be published under its name.  For me and a lot of others out there, this type of publication carries far more weight than the unfounded ramblings of a forum poster named “Historiogrpahy” or a practitioner named “Mike Carnell,” which is presumably his real name.
    Fortuntately for the world, the biased discussions and egotistical ramblings supported by this obscure forum will never be used to define the evolution or history of six sigma.  However, credible publications like the MIT article will be used to accomplish this goal.  Eventually the facts will be documented, assembled, agreed upon and published by recognized scholars within the field of six sigma, most likely by academics.  Unfortunately, very few people would be interested in buying such a book, except for a few posters on this site.  Largely, no one really cares about the history of six sigma, only that it works and brings benefits.
    Somehow I seriously doubt that you will be among the group of scholars that will write the recognized history of six sigma, nor do I believe that any of the posters on this site will be recognized as major contributors.  The bottom line is simple.  You and others like you are probably very good practitioners of six sigma, but that’s as far as it goes.  This is easy for me to say because I am really no different than you.  I too am a simple practitioner, but at least I know I had no role in the creation or propogation of six sigma, nor do I attempt to profess that I would be capble of preparing such a publication.
    Thanks for wishing me a good weekend.  I return the same to you.
    Jim Ace

    0
    #159237

    Historiography
    Participant

    Jim, I appreciate your honesty in regards to you involvement with academia. The critique was not about the article itself. It is an excellent piece of work in strategic management, and I enjoyed reading it. The authors develop a well-thought through conceptual model based on case study methodology. The internal vs. external validity adds a nice touch to the article. This is why the article got published. Plus it got the review and blessing of Gary Hamel, undoubtedly one of today’s top researchers on strategy and innovation management.  
    The article is just not historiographically very valuable because it relies on secondary literature. A write-up of the history of six sigma was not their purpose. The two citations are pretty poor from that point of view, but sufficient for supporting their arguments.
    Just remember that if you come onto this forum with the blanket statement that the history of six sigma has been sufficiently documented, please be aware that there is a wide range of contributors here and that your claims will receive the level of scrutinity that they deserve.
    Being anonymous on this site, I leave it up to every discussant to guess or second guess what my involvement with six sigma is from a professional  and academic point of view. Any credentials do not matter on a public forum because it is the arguments that counts. Plus, it allows a level of anynomity that is quite comfortable.
    Thanks for making me aware of this article. It was definitely worth reading. Again, have a great week-end and good luck with your involvement with six sigma in whatever function this may be!
     

    0
    #159238

    Chad Taylor
    Participant

    Omashi,
    Think what you may of our President. A tyrant who practiced ethenic cleansing and killing of anyone who opposed him has been removed and brought to justice. That in itself is reason enough.
    I do not wish to start a long a$$ discussion as this is no place for it……..
    Thanks
    Chad Taylor

    0
    #159240

    Jim Ace
    Participant

    Historiography,
    Thank you for your kind and considerate response.  As you reasonably say, “credentials do not matter on a public forum because it is the arguments that counts.”  I could not agree more with this thinking.  But basic respect counts as well.  It does seem that some of the experts on this site turn to lame arguments, jadded memory and demonstrative slurs when they get backed into a corner. 
    I know its just dreaming, but would it not be nice if these individuals gave careful thought to their postings before unleashing a barrage of garbage.  They might think they are wise and experienced, but often come across as being frustrated with their station in life and worship an idol of themselves.
    In stark contrast to this, Quality Colorado is probably the best, most considerate poster on this site.  It would be great to hear more from him.  His arguments are always rational, reasonable and plausable, filled with good advise and teeming with facts.  He strikes a good balance between the subjective and the technical.  When he does not know something, he admits it.  He is humble, yet confident.  He does not provide opinions from the hip and is always cheerful!  Thank you Quality Colorado for being a breath of fresh air.  Your contributions will increase the percieved value of this site.
    Jim Ace.

    0
    #159243

    Omashi Sabachi
    Participant

    Just  a  simple  equation:Iraq Before  and  After?What  has  changed?
    Just  read  the  news??
    All  Best  Wishes…………  

    0
    #159246

    Request for close out
    Participant

    Can this discussion be closed out? It is getting way out of hand.

    0
Viewing 47 posts - 101 through 147 (of 147 total)

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