iSixSigma

Mike Carnell – answer the question

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Mike Carnell – answer the question

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #52688

    Dieter
    Participant

    Still waiting for you to answer the question?

    0
    #185659

    Severino
    Participant

    I’m pretty sure that statement doesn’t get a question mark after it.Β 
    As far as the point you are trying to make concerning DPMO, you’re correct.Β  The manner in which the opportunities are determinedΒ may not be consistent from company to company, person to person, or even from the same person.Β  This does not make the tool itself incorrect.Β  That would be equivalent to saying that all blueprints should be thrown out because the engineer is capable of assigning tolerances based on the physical restriction of what works and what doesn’t, the actual process variation, or an arbitrary number based off of the titleblock.
    Like all tools, it is up to the practicioner to use it correctly.

    0
    #185669

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Dieter,
    You are still dodging just like you have since the 19th. You refuse to answer the question and so now this is how you are dodging the question.
    Won’t work. You have been asked repeatedly to justify your glittering generalization and have tried ducking behind any other comment to avoid it. Answer it or get lost.

    0
    #185672

    Robert S
    Member

    Jsev, that is exactly the point I made in post 158970 nearly a week ago – “Dieter, can games be played with Opportunities? Of course. So what? That does not follow a logic trail to SS being useless.”
    However, to Mike’s point, Dieter doesn’t care about logic. He’s thrown out a wiffle ball at MLB game and won’t pick it up and go away.

    0
    #185679

    GB
    Participant

    Good analogy Robert.

    0
    #185695

    Dieter
    Participant

    No that is not it, Mike already made that clear.The issue of concern is the SS standard of 3.4 ppm, although I don’t have a problem with this other than it is 4.5 sigma, the problem is 3.4 dpmo because theis dpmo can mean anything. The reason it can mean anything is because it is not clear how to define an opportunity – at least in this forum Ha, Ha.As one criticism of SS is it take too long and is too costly, we have to consider the poor dpmo standard might be the cause because many companies spend a lot of money, resources, and effort to try to use something that cannot be quantified.This is why I told the forum dpmo might be (probably) behind the demise of US manufacturing because they invested in trying to achieve dpmo = 3.4 instead of new products, new brands, and new technology.The reason I explained this to you is because so many others in this forum are like yapping dogs. One barks and most bark together without thinking. Also I don’t think I can talk about this on a Lean forum because it belongs to SS. Anyway, what kind or people come to this forum and talk to themselves like a grape on a bunch!

    0
    #185699

    ?
    Participant

    Hi
    I’m sure where you were taught SS but I think I’d ask for my money back.
    The idea is to improve a process to what is reasonable for the company/process/cost etc. If people are blindly going after 3.4 then they deserve to fail as they haven’t enagaged their brain first. As said in other posts this isn’t SS it’s the user not understanding the tools. CICO as they say.
    And lets be honest if your improving a process to produce a product no one wants then you haven’t even started to use SS at the correct point in the process.
    Β 

    0
    #185700

    Mikel
    Member

    ?Dieter has not been trained or every applied SS, he has just read a
    bunch of articles or is just parroting what he has been told.Dieter, I can go into your work place and take money off of the table
    today. It is not a question of difficulty or cost, it is a question of why I
    could bring a positive ROI while you are just sitting here
    contemplating your navel? The results speak for themselves.

    0
    #185707

    Severino
    Participant

    “This is why I told the forum dpmo might be (probably) behind the demise of US manufacturing because they invested in trying to achieve dpmo = 3.4 instead of new products, new brands, and new technology.”
    So in your estimation, this is a much more likely hypothesis than:

    Cheaper direct and indirect labor
    Penetration into additional markets
    Cheaper plant costs (i.e. real estate, taxes, energy, etc.)
    Have you even worked in facility that has offshored jobs?Β  I have and never in any meeting did anyone state:Β  “OMG we need to move jobs to a foreign country because we can’t decide hot to calculate DPMO!!!”Β  Your argument is spurious and you know it.Β  You just enjoy getting a rise out of the forum.Β 
    In answer to your statement about “new products, new brands, and new technology” you are only getting half the picture.Β  If I have a new product, brand, or technology and I cannot produce it in an economical, high quality fashion then it is completely useless.Β  If I make the iPhone for $800 but sell it for $400 how did my company benefit?Β  If I sell it for $400 and it costs $200 to make, but the damn thing doesn’t work how did my company benefit?
    You don’t necessarily need “Six Sigma” to make a low cost, high reliability/quality product or service.Β  However, you will find you use a lot of the same tools that are in the toolbox.Β  At that point, where is the value in splitting hairs?Β  There are also markets where there will not be any innovation or it won’t be forthcoming for years.Β  In those circumstances, SS also helps you remain competitive as you work to produce the same or better output with less resources thus cutting costs.
    At this point, I’d like to conclude by saying STFU and GTFO.

    0
    #185709

    Dieter
    Participant

    Really – and how do you do that when you work in a University???? Guess what version of SS I studied Stan? Ha, Ha, Ha. You might even remember me!!!!

    0
    #185711

    Kluttz
    Member

    Re “the die” question” – assuming that we own a dice manufacturing company & we were interested in monitoring our process capability via a DPO or DPMO metric, we could either define an opportunity as 1 side on a single die or an individual pip (6 possible opportunities vs 21 possible opportunities.Β  Heck, we could consider pip color/shape/placement as opportunities as well for a near infinite number of opportunities per die, right?Β 
    Is that your issue with what you define as Six Sigma?Β  The seemingly arbitrary definition of “opportunity” where it appears that we can make our sigma whatever we wanted it to be?Β 
    Ok, let me clear up that misconception for you.Β  You’re right insofar as we can make an opportunity whatever we want it to be.Β  You’re wrong in almost every other regard.Β  It doesn’t matter what we define an “opportunity” to be just as long as long as that definition is consistent for our production runs.Β  Once we begin plotting our DPMO/DPO on a control chart, the Y axis because pretty much moot because we only want to see relative performance trends and the magnitude of process variation.Β  It really doesn’t doesn’t matter whether you have 1 opportunity per die, 6 opportunities, 21 or 5,000.Β  If the denominator is a constant, then your variation is going to be a function of your numerator.Β  So if pip color is a CTQ, then it should probably be an opportunity.Β  Same with placement, size, shape, etc.Β  Define it as it make sense for your business and your process.Β 
    On a personal note, I think you’d get more value from this forum and others if you read it objectively without much contribution for the time being.Β  I mean, just by reading your posts (not to mention your vocabulary & logic), it’s fairly obvious that your knowledge of Six Sigma, basic manufacturing concepts and the economy in general is about an inch deep.Β  Don’t take it personal – it is what it is.Β  You posted that SS cause the collapse of US manufacturing (demonstrably untrue).Β  You posted an an anti-SS article by a QualProΒ consultant to try to drive home a point.Β  That shows that you’re not really familiar with SS (beyond a cursory level), alternatives to SS, or the process improvement industry in general.Β  So I could probably guess where you are career-wise, education-wise and salary-wise.
    You’re also picking fights with people clearly more knowledgeable & qualified than yourself.Β  As a few people here have already said, its to the point when the only option you have in saving face by conceding some points and moving on.Β  Yet you keep digging a deeper hole.Β  Look, I’m a smart guy.Β  I can clearly blow you out of the water on any number of topics.Β  But compared to some other people in the forum?Β  I’m a neaderthal.Β  So you’re not helping yourself.Β  I’ve made an idiot of myself on any number of message boards and forums and it took some serious beatdowns to get me to grow up and contribute in an intelligent fashion.Β  You’re going to have to decide how many more smackdowns you’re willing to take.Β  Or you can just continue on down this path – creating sockpuppets & becoming more and more of an embarassing nuisance.Β 
    If you grow up a little bit, I think people here will understand and have short memories of your posts here.Β  If you pay attention, you’ll learn a lot and be better for it.Β  Thats not to say that you’ll fully embrace LSS and all its associated methodologies, but you’ll definitely learn somethings that you can apply to your current role now and make you more valuable within your organization.Β  You might even save a job or two along the line (maybe even your own).

    0
    #185714

    Robert S
    Member

    Thanks Union. One of the best articulated posts I’ve seen on here ever. We all can learn from your “etiquette” section… better said than iSS itself.

    0
    #185716

    Mikel
    Member

    Oh, you are that Dieter!You were in school with my 3 year old last year – right?Your typing and language skill are certainly coming along.How is the potty training, are you out of pull-ups?

    0
    #185717

    Dieter
    Participant

    No, you don’t seem appreciate how to solve the die problem. I’m surprised you dismissed this problem quite so easiliy because many people in this forum seem to find statistics interesting and I thought maybe I give some enjoyment because everyone seemed to be quite bored talking to themselves (other people who agree with them!) I’ve been watching the forum for about three months and I’m not goung to be rude to because you’re not one of the bully-boys in this forum – so I’m suprised you would attack me without any provocation. I must remind you, you don’t know me or my background so for a SS man you’ve made a lot of assumptions.If you don’t like my Grammar it is only because my French girlfriend can’t always find time to check my American as she is a dancer at the Moulin Rouge. (Her dpmo is extremely impressive by the way.)I’m also surprised you don’t think it is important to be able to estimate opportunities reliably. Are you the person from Remulac who published an article about counting opportunities by any chance?I’ve copied and pasted this from the Motorola University site:Six Sigma as a Metric
    The term “Sigma” is often used as a scale for levels of “goodness” or quality. Using this scale, “Six Sigma” equates to 3.4 defects per one million opportunities (DPMO). Therefore, Six Sigma started as a defect reduction effort in manufacturing and was then applied to other business processes for the same purpose.You can check it yourself.As to the role of SS – my comments have been towards DPMO only and the consequece of its use. I think it is reasonable to suggest anyone working towards 3.4 dpmo might be wasting resources – better to use DPU and extend the contract of the consultants from one week to four weeks training. (See I’m really a friend in disguise.)I will concede some of the other things you mention – just remember – nothing is what it seems.Wiedersehen, PfΓΌat Di alles

    0
    #185718

    Kluttz
    Member

    OK, so far you’ve demonstrated the ability to reference spectacularly unbiased columns and now selectively Copy&Paste irrelevant portions from a corporate website.Β  I’m not sure I follow.Β  Based on your C&P, the term “often” is important.Β  It’s not “always” or “exclusively”.Β  Its “often”.Β  Regardless, Motorola is not the end-all-be-all of Six Sigma methodologies.Β  They coined a term and leveraged some decades-old (sometimes centuries-old)Β concepts in a way that made sense for the business problems they were trying to solve.Β  I do the same thing in my organization – judiciously select the appropriate tool for the problem Im trying to solve.Β  Thats the point I think you’re missing.Β  You obviously don’t have a very good handle on the actual applications of Six Sigma beyond whatever contrarian article you just googled.Β 
    I stated that opportunities should be traceable to CTQ’s.Β  I also stated that it should be process-specific.Β  So if you’re saying that DPU is “better”, you’re incorrect.Β  “Better” or “worse” can only be defined here in the context of a specific process.Β 
    If you want to talk stats, we can talk stats.Β  I’m nothing more than a 6 on a 1-10 scale, but I’m pretty sure I can hold my own vs you.
    And I’m not making any assumptions.Β  Each post you’ve entered here is a data point.Β Β So any statement I’ve made is a result of analyzing the data.Β  You don’t have any level of understanding as toΒ the state of US manufacturing (current or historical), the difference (if there is any) between MVTΒ & SS, and knowing how to act when there are people in the room smarter than you.Β  Β 
    But if you know better, then explain to me why your methodology is better than mine.Β 

    0
    #185719

    Sloan
    Participant

    Dieter,
    Your die question about DPMO is difficult to give a good answer because so much depends on many other factors. How you decide to count opportunities depends on how the customer counts them and how the dice are manufactured.
    Β 
    From the customerΒ’s perspective, one might reasonably consider any functional imperfection (missing dots, chipped corners, out of spec weight, etc) to render the product not just to have a defect, but to be defective (useless). In that case, the manufacturer is just playing silly games by trying to Β“inventΒ” opportunities to try to puff up their DPMO rates. In so doing, they will be losing customers because of poor quality and their management will be left wondering what happened. So rule number one is, no matter what else you measure, you MUST measure the way your customer measures if you care about meeting expectations.
    Β 
    In addition to measuring the way your customer measures, you may also want to count defects (not just defectives) if you have a multi-stage process for making dice in order to detect problems in one or more stages of your process. How you count defects is largely dictated by your manufacturing process. As Stan said, look at the steps where value is added. For example, if your dice are cast as one unit including the dots with color in them all in one step, then you essentially have one opportunity to get the finished product right. The dice will come out of the molds either Β“passΒ” or Β“fail.Β” EachΒ finished die is therefore a single opportunity.
    Β 
    If you cast blank cubes first, then drill the dots individually, then paint in the color, etc, you now have many more opportunities to introduce defects, any one of which could render the product defective in the customerΒ’s eye. As a manufacturer, you could hold blindly to the claim that you have a very low DPMO rate for your product, but if your customer considers that one Β“littleΒ” defect to render the whole product defective then you are just fooling yourself and you will soon find that you have no more customers. For example, letΒ’s say that your die making process has a lot of steps. Casting of the cube (one opportunity), drilling each hole individually (21 more), and painting each hole (21 more) for a total of 43 defect opportunities per unit. If your process routinely misses painting the single dot on the Β“snake-eyeΒ” side, say you miss it one out of every three dice, then you can claim that your process is 99.22% defect free. (1 defect every 129 opportunities). However, if your customer considers that missing paint to render the die defective, you have a 33% defective product rate. Anyone who steadfastly tells their customer they have a 99.22% success rate in a case like this is delusional and should be publicly humiliated. The 1/129 DPMO rate can be useful to the manufacturing team to help determine where the defects are occurring in the process, but that number should not be confused with how the customer measures defects. Nor should it be used to mask problems in the manufacturing process from management.
    Β 
    Yes, people misuse the DPMO calculation, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of deception. To therefore claim that the tool is useless is ridiculous. ThatΒ’s like saying a shovel is a bad tool for digging holes because sometimes people use shovels to bash someone over the head. Bad usage of the tool doesnΒ’t make the tool bad, it makes the tool user bad.
    Β 
    Outlier

    0
    #185720

    JC
    Participant

    QuestionIf:* I define my problem
    * Measure it to see where I am, in this case the metric is 12 per hour, and I want that reduced to 8 per hour
    * and I figure out how to do it, do it
    * and then go back 6 months later to make sure things are cooland if I never put anything about dpo, dpu , dp anything, in the report, but I save my company money am I using Six Sigma incorrectly? Do I really have to even worry about dpo? Isn’t it the results that matter? I’m not understanding why some are getting worked up about opportunities being measured the same all the time. I don’t even see how one could. I appreciate the support from some of you for a newbie, but either I’m really stupid, or some people are posting as knowledgeable practitioners who aren’t.JC

    0
    #185721

    JC
    Participant

    OutlierI think you’ve provided the clarity I needed. Thanks,

    0
    #185731

    Severino
    Participant

    Dieter –
    Go to the Reading Room on SPC Press and check out the article “The Six Sigma Zone.”Β  Around page 12, your point is made without the need to correlate the issue to the decline of U.S. manufacturing.Β 

    0
    #185736

    Chatikobo
    Participant

    Your point has also been made here:http://www.wdpc.co.uk/articles/creativeimprovement.pdf

    0
    #185738

    Mikel
    Member

    Lance,Some very fatal logic flaws by the author. The customer sees 150,000 defective products per million. How
    many defects were seen in the production process in making such
    a crappy product?The point of six sigma is to not have defects in the production
    process because it’s the only way to keep defects from getting to
    your customer.So an example like this shows the author does not even
    comprehend that simple fact, and the example would be of a
    process and containment system so bad that we would not even
    worry about the “sigma” level. No competent practitioner would
    claim this to be a capable process.

    0
    #185743

    Damodaran
    Member

    Outlier,Thanks for posting the solution. Do you think the number of opportunities for making a six dot arrangement on the six-side of the die is only 6X the number of opportunties for making one dot on the one-side of the die, or does a tighter arrangment of dots inherently give more opportunities?Regards,
    Sanjay

    0
    #185749

    Szentannai
    Member

    Hi Outlier,
    this is a great summary! I guess the difficulty with DPMO is that it will still give an overall low number in the case the production process is complex – and I just cannot see the added value of that number (1/129 in your example). What does this number tell us, and where can we use this information? My answer would be – “pretty much nothing ” and “nowhere”.If I am thinking of the 3 basic questions from TOC: what to change, what to change it to and how to achieve that change, this DPMO measurement will give me no clues for either question.Final Yield would be much more useful, and a yield measurement per production step – that would show us WHY we need to improve (the customer gets a crappy product) and WHERE – at the only step with the low yield.What do you think?Regards
    Sandor

    0
Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

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