iSixSigma

Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder

Viewing 76 posts - 1 through 76 (of 76 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49126

    Justin
    Participant

    Hi Everyone,Is this website dedicated to Six Sigma’s Mr. Mikel Harry and Mr. Richard Schroeder? Do they visit the forum often?I think you all do such a good job promoting their methods.Justin

    0
    #167295

    Heebeegeebee BB
    Participant

    (I’ll make the popcorn)

    0
    #167296

    Dr. Who
    Participant

    Who are those guys? I have never heard of them.

    0
    #167306

    BC
    Participant

    Ricky Schroeder from Silver Spoons?  What’s HE got to do with the 1.5 sigma drift?

    0
    #167312

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    No no, isn’t Schroeder the kid in Peanuts who plays the piano?  I hear he only make 3.4 mistakes per million keystrokes. 

    0
    #167318

    Mikel
    Member

    No I think he is the guy from NYPD.And isn’t that Mikel guy the ballet dancer from Russia?

    0
    #167320

    Joe BB
    Participant

    No, Mikel Harry is the godfather of Six Sigma and Richard Schroeder is his friend and they have written an excellent book call “Six sigma process characterization’ a must read for all six sigma practitioners. A lot of people are very jealous of Dr. Harry because of his great contributions to quality improvement. I would classify him next to Taguchi, Shingo and Deming. He is great.Joe BB

    0
    #167325

    Mikel
    Member

    Saying Harry and Schroeder are friends is like saying you and I are best friends. they can’t stand each other and have not spoken for years.
    Harry as the next Taguchi? Hardly. Harry is out selling crappy implementations like AT&T, I don’t believe that could ever be said about Taguchi.

    0
    #167327

    Michael Mann
    Participant

    Thank goodness for Harry.
    He has enabled processes to drift by +/- 1.5 sigma and to try to compensate by broadening spec limits.
    Silly people like me would have just tried to get processes in-control. 
     With Harry, things can get worse and you can have better results !!!

    0
    #167354

    BC
    Participant

    But he tends to drift 1.5 octaves over time.

    0
    #167356

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I heard that, too.  I understand that his 3.4 per million mistakes usually happens when he drifts the 1.5 octaves.

    0
    #167357

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Should be 3.4 mistakes per million – sorry for hitting a sour note.

    0
    #167359

    BC
    Participant

    Come to think of it, a musical score kinda resembles an x-bar chart, doesn’t it?

    0
    #167364

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Yes, it does, but any correlation to a control chart would be a little off key, in my opinion.  I am sure that some would orchestrate it into something it is not, but I don’t know what they would bass it on.  Then again, those who live in ivory towers may strike up the band and try to string us along, waving their wand trying to get us all on the same sheet.  The key is, we shouldn’t play along with them,  as it will only b minor in the grand scheme of things. 

    0
    #167368

    SMC
    Member

    Mikel Harry and Deming?  Not hardly.  Also, wasn’t Bill Smith (RIP) the guy that actually developed the methodology?  I’m sure I learned that somewhere…Hummm.  Probably not in a Harry book. 

    0
    #167371

    Brandon
    Participant

    Mikel Harry cannot be credited with creating a new discipline or even with being one of the great thinkers relative to process improvement. That is ridiculous.
    However, he is/was one of the great marketers of all time. He put SS on the map, made it very expensive and visible.
    In that regard we all (well, most of us at least) owe him a big thank you! I can tell you my income over the past several years has been positively impacted to a large degree by him having taken SS to its fame.

    0
    #167373

    JWDT
    Participant

    I hope you make enough for me… I will bring the beverages.

    0
    #167375

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Is the money we make the prime consideration?  Is that what really matters?  Or is it to help our clients / companies to actually gain long term improvements, with better processes and products that not only satisfy our customers, but also allow the workers to find joy and fulfillment in their work?

    0
    #167376

    Brandon
    Participant

    Good point Six. Back to Maslow’s hieharchy – gotta eat first. Then you can feel good about what you do.
    So, I contend Harry helped to both feed us well and to create an awareness that allowed us to bring capabilities to a hugh population.
    Aahhh…I feel so satisfied!

    0
    #167377

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    But the thing is, if we focus on the money first, we tend to lose sight of the greater good we can do.  I believe, with all my heart, that with a focus as I described, the money will be there and we will indeed create a sustainable movement, as Deming envisioned. 
    The drive for money tends to create what he called “hack consultants” who, in the end, diminishes our worth and the good we are trying to accomplish.  We see this all the time on this forum, through the “training” that is being provided in the drive for the mighty buck, cutting corners, offering certifications that those who get them feel entitles them to expert status and thus the entitlement to tell others what and how to do things.  Then, when it all comes crashing down around them, the movement gets the bad name and we are all diminished by it.
    It is the same sort of thinking that we see in most companies – the drive for dollars leads to short term and near-sighted thinking, cookbook approaches and disastrous results.

    0
    #167381

    Brandon
    Participant

    No argument…but let’s go back to the topic of this post. Harry & Schreoder’s role in SS. Everything else aside – they were the primary party responsible for putting us on the map. Such that we could have a broader audience and thereby, as you say, do good in the world.

    0
    #167383

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Brandon,
    I was “on the map,” as you say, doing to good fight long before they came along, and would be regardless their efforts, even had six sigma never been created and poularized. Helping people and companies to improve is my passion.  You were the one that took the discussion in the direction we’ve been going, I am just voicing a different viewpoint.
    Best wishes,
    Shooter

    0
    #167395

    UW
    Member

    To bad you missed the opportunity, it obviously took someone as brilliant as Dr. Harry to invent SS.Uwe

    0
    #167396

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Uwe,
    I didn’t miss any opportunity, but thanks for caring..  If you’re going to give credit for the invention of Six Sigma, at least give it to the person who deserves the credit: Bill Smith.
    https://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c030915a.asp 
    Shooter

    0
    #167399

    UW
    Member

    Shooter,How else should I interpret:” was “on the map,” as you say, doing to good fight long before they came along, and would be regardless their efforts, even had six sigma never been created and poularized.”U. Wanke

    0
    #167400

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Uwe,
    No interpretation needed.  It is very easy to understand.  I was and have been involved in using the tools of continual improvement long before six sigma came along.  There is nothing all that unique in six sigma.  Control charts, DOE, the 7 QC tools and the 7 management planning tools, lean tools, project management tools, group dynamics skills and tools were all around long before six sigma came into being.  I was using them in the Quality Circle days, the TQM / TQL days, the Business Process Reengineering days, the Six Sigma days, and now the Lean Six Sigma days.  I haven’t missed a single opportunity, as your interpretation incorrectly surmises.  So, what exactly have I missed out on?
    Shooter

    0
    #167402

    UW
    Member

    The credit for your work because you just follow the path laid out by Dr. Harry. Why else would you be on this site?U. Wanke

    0
    #167404

    GrayR
    Participant

    Actually, its all about money, and always has been.  If you want to create a sustained movement of continuous improvement, then you must always tie it to money. 
    Organizations and people aren’t interested in continuous improvement, Deming, Six Sigma, lean, etc. because they think they can make more money without those things — or, the effort to use these methods cost more than the benefits.
    I think one of the reasons why Six Sigma has stuck around as long as it has is because it is linked to an identifed financial benefit.  TQM didn’t go far enough in this regard.
    Now to your point on ‘short term’ vs. ‘long term’ dollars, is where the hack consultants and the drive goes in the wrong direction.  They cut corners to try to accomplish something that takes years, maybe even decades (like Toyota) to do the right way.
    But I go back to my original point – don’t put the cart before the horse – this is all about companies making a better dollar tomorrow than what they made today. I don’t think Deming envisioned anything else, except that he understood that long term growth requires a different level of effort than short term actions.

    0
    #167405

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    UW,
    You are wrong in your giving credit to Mikel.  Harry is just following the work of others: Juran, Shewhart, Deming, Ishakawa, Shingo, Ohno, Taguchi, Fisher, Box, Cox, Smith – need I continue?  Why don’t you give credit where it is due?  Except for the 1.5 sigma shift myth, what original thought does Harry contribute to anything? 
    As far as it goes, you have no clue what path I follow.  When Six Sigma dies and you are left scratching your head as to what to do, I will still be following my path of continual improvement from a systems view, as I always have: before, during and after six sigma.  That’s because I take the time to learn from the masters, not from the pretenders that take the credit for the work of others.

    0
    #167408

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    My point is that six sigma’s only focus is on the money and it drives very strange behavior, indeed.  Fudged numbers are running rampant through the ranks in order to achieve the requirements for big bucks savings.  Things that cannot be diorectly tied to monetary gain are overlooked or outrightly ignored.  Systems are suboptimized in the interest of of process “optinization.”  And there are just some things that should be done because they are the right thing to do.
    So, what has happened?  The GE glory days are gone now the Imelt has taken over and the stock proces have slipped tremendously.  The wannabe take over guys from GE that didn’t get the top job moved onto places like Home Depot.  What has happened there?  Six Sigma isn’t the end-all be-all, and it isn’t leading to the bound for glory dollars and money you speak of, in may cases.
    If you focus solely on money, you will lose the thing you cherish most:  the money.  Focus on the customers and your people, and the money will be there.

    0
    #167413

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I’ll even go further.  With the focus on money only, massive off-shoring has occurred with lots of companies taking their manufacturing to China.  What has that led to?  Lead in everything with paint on it, which has put our health – our children’s health – at great risk.  Toothpaste that kills people.  Pet food that kills our pets. 
     
    Oh, but it really looks good when we cut the costs of production by going to a place that only pays its workers about $100 a month, but what is the cost to society?  And in the end, what is the cost to the companies that now have to deal with the lost goodwill and reputations for quality that they talk so much about in their company vision and mission statements.  The cost is greater than any savings they have accrued.  But at least they get to say, “We’re a Six Sigma company!” 

    0
    #167414

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    And to go even one step further, I’ll give you a very recent example: the Goodyear Tyler, TX plant.  They just shut down the plant earlier this month.  Why?  Money – they didn’t make the high margin tires that Goodyear wants to make.  Forget the fact that they were the only plant in the US making the financial and build targets while the others are missing theirs.  Poor old Tyler Kelly Springfield / Goodyear only made the small rim tires, not the sexy 22 – 24 inch tires that have the high margins.  So, they let the entire workforce, except for the Lawton plant, go out on strike (Lawton is non-union).  The reason for the strike?  The union wanted to keep Tyler open.  The best they could do was to get six months added to the closure date.  Where are they moving most of the tire building for the after market small rim tires?  To China. 
     
    What is the impact of the Goodyear decision?  They got a short term bump in their stock price and they can believe they are making headway to their stated goal of something like a one billion dollar cost reduction over the next few years.  The cost to Tyler, TX and the surrounding area?  About a billion dollars in lost revenues per year to the local economy, with the people that used to work there either out of work, or taking jobs at much lower pay, and the local companies that used to support the plant, now having their survival put in jeopardy 
     
    And what’s happening in the auto market as a result of the oil prices?  A return to smaller, more fuel efficient cars, with smaller rim tires – the very tires that Tyler used to make.  The truck and SUV sales have tanked and are likely to remain there for quite some time.
     
    Under the leadership of Billy Taylor, the former plant manager, the Tyler plant – both union and management – took a long term systems view.  They did a wonderful job of adopting a continual improvement approach.  They put their blood, sweat and tears into it and it paid off both for the plant and the company as a whole.  The sad thing is that Akron doesn’t have the same view.  They want the Six Sigma cost reduction savings.  If it doesn’t kill them, they will be very lucky. 
     
    So yes, companies are in business to make money or they wouldn’t be in business, but the current view of making money through cost cutting is very short sighted and puts them in jeopardy.  They just want the quick fix in order to satisfy the Wall Street crowd.  And as the company suffers, the C-level types will get the mega million dollar handshake and say see ya later, gang, it’s been fun.  Thanks for the money!

    0
    #167415

    Stevo
    Member

    Very nice!!
    I have not seen a rant like this in while.  I’m glad there are other people who forget to take their pills in the morning.
    Stevo

    0
    #167416

    GrayR
    Participant

    I’m not taking an opposite position to you — I agree with your points totally, except that to create something sustainable with Six Sigma, or continuous improvement in general, it has to be linked to dollars (cost or profit).
    You will get the argument from some that offshoring is not a zero-sum game, that is, in the long run economies and society as a whole will benefit because of ‘free trade’.  You are saying that the costs of producing in China could be greater than the savings; but free-traders, Wal-Mart, etc. will argue that the costs to society of not offshoring are greater than if it isn’t done — and guess what, their stock holders (and officers) are going to make more money too.  If you want to counter the off-shore/short term argument, you are going to have to make a stronger argument (in terms of dollars) to show individual companies and society the effects of offshoring. 
    I think cont. imp. is the right thing to do, or I wouldn’t be at this website. If you want to get the attention of new GE management, Wal-Mart, or the company down the street, and create something sustainable, it would be better if this website had dollar signs all over it!

    0
    #167417

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Stevo,
    No, I took them this morning, but my eyes were kind of blurry and I took the wrong ones!  Dang, I hate it when that happens!
    Thanks for lightening my mood a little.  As you can tell, I am very emotionally tied to the Tyler plant and the topic as a whole.  It gets my blood boiling when I see my friends – the people that I love and respect – being put out of work due to short sighted, short term thinking execs, all in the name of saving money, with the end result being a loss of revenues for the company, the local economy, and the good old US of A.
    Shooter

    0
    #167418

    GrayR
    Participant

    Tyler, TX — isn’t that Bush country? 

    0
    #167419

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    Well  said

    0
    #167420

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    What  about  the  using  of the relevant tools  at  each  stage  of  the
    DMAIC concept?

    0
    #167421

    Putnam
    Participant

    I really recommend reading “The Elusive Lean Enterprise” for off-shoring / out-sourcing cost calculations.  They go deep into the topic, and why the savings are often not really there or disappear quickly.
    That, and the thought of the “Chinese tires blowing up” news a few months ago, doesn’t make me view the Texas losses very favorably.

    0
    #167423

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    When we look at free trade, let’s look at the long term impacts of our decisions and the macro economics. It isn’t all that free, being typically a one way street, all going against the US consumer.  My fear, especially with China, is that our trade deficit has sharply increased.  We have become inextricably dependent upon them for our goods and services.  They are now buying up coal and oil reserves at an alarming rate due the massive amounts of revenue they are getting from around the world.  They have enough of our money in relation to bonds that, if they dump them on the market, the weak dollar of  today will be worthless, overnight.  Less we forget, they are still a very strong dictatorial run communist country, that abuses human rights and that takes slip shod approaches to their production of goods and services. 
     It would do us well to remember the old Chinese adage:  we don’t need to defeat you – we will just absorb you.  And we are being absorbed.  What do you think will happen when they decide to annex Taiwan?  We will be mute, idly standing by as they hold our offshore production hostage, if they don’t nationalize it altogether.  Why stop with Taiwan?  Maybe Japan would be a good target, too and while they’re at it, let’s grab South Korea.  If they do this, the companies that are reliant upon Chinese goods and services will be dead.  And the US, as we know it, will no longer exist.  The world is not an even playing field and we had best be careful whom we choose to play with. 
    Remember the days when WalMart touted products made in the US?  It was key to their marketing and sales.  Sam Walton used to be very proud of that fact.  It meant something, beyond money.  It was a source of pride, for the company and their workers.  Today, WalMart is probably one of the most controversial companies in the world.
    Womack did a study a while back regarding the offshore topic.  The bottom line was that, unless you do business in the country where you’re outsourcing to, it makes no sense from an economic perspective to do so.  The cost, often hidden from the cursory financial examinations given to the decision, aren’t worth it.  It doesn’t pay off in the long run.
    The current rush to outsource our software and customer service has become a sad joke.  You want to get some help from a help desk regarding your new computer?  Try getting through the language barriers.  It has become an exercise in frustration and resulted in a reduction in customer satisfaction.  What’s the customer to do?  Give up and shake your head.  Customer service has become a laughing stock in the US and worldwide.  While they are trying to figure out what you want and answer your questions, they are charging you by the minute for the help you need.
    Sprint just fired over 1,000 of their customers.  Why?  Because the customers took too much of their time related to customer service issues due to billing errors on the part of Sprint.  The customer suffers all the way.  I used to be a Nextel customer.  I was satisfied with their service and a loyal customer.  After Sprint bought them out, their customer service became so bad that I went over to Alltel, canceling my Sprint landline service as well.  Now Alltel has been bought out and I am waiting to see the ramifications of it all.  So far, so good.  I hope it stays that way.
    The whole issue, Gray, is that in the search for increased revenues and profits, we have lost sight of the very thing that Six Sigma originally was focused on:  the customer and their satisfaction.  I would say that all the WalMart, GE and current cost cutting crowd see is the dollar signs and it is becoming ruinous.  I guess we can put the dollar signs on the graves of the companies that will be dead in the future.

    0
    #167424

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    What about it?  Nothing new there, except DMAIC, which was in different 7 and 12 step forms duirng the Quality Circle and TQM days.  Same stuff, different name. 

    0
    #167427

    Brandon
    Participant

    This string took a very interesting and informative twist.
    However, based on its original topic I still holf that Bill Smith created SS and Harry invented it. It would not have its visibility were it not for Harry or someone else stepping up to market it as he did.
    Say what you want, because of what Harry did a great deal more market awareness of process improvement was the result.

    0
    #167428

    Deanb
    Participant

    I likewise agree with much of what both you and Shooter are saying, but would like to draw some distinctions.Is CI only about money: NO. There are many improvements that are dollar neutral, but benefit legitimate stakeholders significantly. IMHO, it is the duty of every corporation to pursue such benefits as a part of responsible stewardship, which world class companies tend to do more of than non-worldclass companies. In my observation, TQM did a better job of addressing these kinds of gains than SS.SS can be a better cost reducer than TQM, but that is not a virtue unless it benefits “the most.” Unless SS allows itself to be bounded by stakeholder needs, it becomes self destructing, which we are seeing happening.Consultant hacks come in 2 forms: external AND internal. In either case, it is management that promotes and sustains the hack mentality. Should companies be free to move their capital and production globally: YES. Should the costs to society be considered more: YES. Is a better balance needed between these 2 interests: Definitely. Other country’s laws often achieve a better balance here than the USA does. Lets see what happens when these companies try to close plants in China!Corporations are legal entities granted rights and responsibilities by the state. Corporate upper management, a relative few in the stakeholder world, benefit disproportionately over just about all stakeholder groups, including stockholders. Perhaps this is where our Red X is?

    0
    #167429

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    And I would say that Bill Smith created / invented Six Sigma.  Harry marketed it and it has morphed in to something that isn’t what was intended to be, with its sole focus on cost cutting to the exclusion of the customer.  There are some that still take the customer view, but they are now becoming few and far between, even in those that once had it.  The training and education in Six Sigma has become marginalized with its sole focus on cost reduction.
    I would also say that a focus on process improvement also has its drawbacks when it neglects the view of the systems and value streams within which they function.  I have seen, and I am sure you have seen it too, Brandon, where processes are improved and actually increase costs to the company as a whole.
    I’ll give Harry his due: he’s a great marketeer.  That isn’t always a good thing.

    0
    #167430

    GrayR
    Participant

    Agreed to all.  You may want to add that the U.S.’ military is pretty much dependent on parts from China, since we no longer make many of the electronics needed.  In a couple years, you probably can add in the need for India’s support for any software upgrades.  And about the same time, most of the U.S. steel and alloy plants will be offshored, so you can include armor and missile parts . . . but we won’t need them anyway because Tom Friedman has a theory that two countries that have a McDonald’s in them have never fought each other.
     

    0
    #167431

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Gray,
    I like that!  McDonalds diplomacy.  How can you fight with someone who eats the same Big Mac and fries that you do?  Now that’s just downright wrong!  I was in South Korea and came across the Bulgolgi Burger at a McDonalds in Ulsan, so there is a little bit of country “cuisine” in them, but the Big Mac was the same as one I would get in Tyler.  Wish the McDonalds in Tyler had the Bulgolgi Burger, though.  It was pretty good.

    0
    #167432

    MrMHead
    Participant

    Wow! What a range of discussion under this thread!
    My $0.02
    SS vs Tools and practices:  I haven’t been around LSS for very long, but I often see – and generally agree with – how existing tools, knowledge and practices are re-packaged in a more formal, documented process.  I see that in PM all the time – all this common sense and “I know that” stuff is just packaged into an easy to follow formula.  As is StDev, Pareto, control charts, et al – packaged into DMAIC for a repeatable flow… that makes sense.
    Short term gain vs Long term goals:  This makes me think of the “quick fix” home shows on TV.  Sure you can make over a room or two on a dime and in a weekend so it looks cool on TV by Sunday – but what is the Quality of the work and products that went into the rush?  What will that room look like after 90 days of Teenage Wear and Tear?
    Outsourcing/Manufacturing:  I heard of a situation where one department decided to change vendors of a product from one down the street (in MI I believe) to a vendor in MX because the product was cheaper.  Then the transportation/logistics department was being grilled on why their costs had sky rocketed!  (Hopefully it wasn’t a BB that made the reccomendation to Dept #1)
    Outsourcing/Service:  Executive statement (paraphrased) “.. providing jobs and opportunity to the poor families in India”  RIF’d employee “And what about our families?!?”   Another reason weapons are banned from workplaces.
    Schroeder (have to go way back in the thread for this):  Taught myself the Peanuts theme on piano one bored evening at the frat house (ages ago :)

    0
    #167433

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Very well said, Dean.  We are in total agreement.  It’s those things Deming called the “unknown and unknowable” that often get lost in the fog.  Sometimes, we must do things just becasue they are the right thing to do.

    0
    #167435

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I think it is good that this thread has taken the range it has.  As improvement types, I believe that we sometimes get our focus too microscopic and we need to lift our vision and look at the horizons every once in a while.  It’s just one of the occupational hazards of the profession we follow with so much passion.  Passion is a good thing!

    0
    #167437

    Brandon
    Participant

    Six, I really think we’re on the same page. SS has its place yet it is only one of a number of disciplines one should (must) employ to improve what they do.
    Not to sound like I’m on the current fad but the ability to innovate will drive everything. Markets are changing at a phenominal rate, cost of entry is plummenting, market access has never been so broad and the consumer has never had so many choices and such a level of knowledge or access to purchase choice knowledge. We are in for quite a ride.

    0
    #167440

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Brandon,
    I think we are, too.  You’re right, we’re in for an “E ticket” ride! 
    Recently saw a Business Week reading of the tea leaves for 2008.  They surmise that the cost reduction and efficiency days will give way to the innovation craze, this year.  Now, we just need to package it with a great name and we can maximize the trend.  I like “Make It Better” – or MIB.  We can all get nifty black suits, wear sunglasses, get a cool flashy-thingy to make everyone forget their recent past and reprogram their memories to make them what we want. 
    Shooter

    0
    #167441

    Brandon
    Participant

    Good one…then if we follow Harry’s path we can all have 3 or 4 ex-wives with sizable silicone deposits….as well as huge bank account deposits.

    0
    #167442

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Hmmm . . .wasn’t aware that Mikel had heavily invested in the silicone valley. 
    Maybe we should change the MIB uniform to black cowboy hat, boots and western belt – with sun glasses, of course.  We’ll also need to get a cool car to drive around in – a Ranchero or El Camino – but with a longhorn hood ornament?

    0
    #167443

    Deanb
    Participant

    It will need to be something that is GUARANTEED TO SUCCEED ANYTIME-ANYWHERE yet mysterious and unnecessarily complicated enough to make everyone need infinite training from us.

    0
    #167444

    Brandon
    Participant

    Don’t forget….we have to build in a “shift” ….as an excuse for why it doesn’t always work.

    0
    #167445

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Okay – I’m convinced.  I am taking steps to trademark Make It Better and MIB.  It will have a heavy focus on DFSS, TRIZ and reengineering.  DFSS and TRIZ will give it the complexity we seek and require at least six weeks over six months. 
    We’ll assign projects, after a great deal of assessment and work with the C-level guys and gals to do strategy maps and benchmarking of best practices / world class organizations.  We’ll also do the Delphi Method to get the view of futurists related to the client’s industry. 
    We’ll develop an onerous software package that will take at least a week to understand the basics, with an additional week for advanced users.  No Excel macros for us! 
    We’ll also set up various levels of innovators: maybe call them silver, gold and platinum halos?   
    We will refuse to work with anyone not willing to sign a contract for less than $1,000,000 USD at the current value, so we can take advantage of the future value of money.
    I’m ready to start signing contracts and begin work.  MIB – it’s not just for entertainment – it’s about survival!

    0
    #167446

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Good point, Brandon – hadn’t thought of that, so you own it.  Now we have a partnership like Mikel and Richard.  Now, what to call it?  The 1.5 innovation shift?  For those unexpected shifts in innovation that blind side us and make our clients wonder what the heck happened?

    0
    #167447

    BC
    Participant

    MIB–Men in Black.  How apropos.

    0
    #167448

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Yikes!  Meant to say we won’t sign a contract for less than 1,000,000 USD at the current value.  That one almost slipped by me.  My accountant would never have forgiven me if I’d let that one go!

    0
    #167449

    Mikel
    Member

    And you can sell through eBooks! ; )

    0
    #167450

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Deanb,
    Most of the time I pretty much agree with what you post. In this case I have some serious objections to the characterization of Six Sigma as a cost cutting tool. Six Sigma is a set of tools and if you apply it to cost cutting or revenue (throughput) projects it has nothing to do with the tools. It is what someone has chosen to do with the tools (almost sounds like a NRA ad). We have been on mining deployments for about 5 years. With the price and shortage of metals such as copper and platinum working cost savings would be a completely stupid strategy. We could not have come close to creating the benefits (you can get away from people always thinking cost reduction if you stop refering to the benefits as cost savings) we have created if we tried to do it with costs alone.
    I constantly see the Lean guys talk about throughput and seem to believe it is in the hands of lean and defect reduction in the hands of SS. I would be more than happy to have someone try to resolve the issues we had with a smelter using Lean tools. When you increase the throughput by breaking the bottleneck at the smelter and it now has 150% + of the capacity it used to have that is not cost cutting.
    One reason people turn to cost cutting is because that is what we have trained them on in the business schools and that is what accountants comfortably evaluate. If you start doing throughput their heads spin around for days and they projectile vomit pea soup. There was a reason Bob Galvin handed out copies of a book called “Relevance Lost” when Motorola started down the SS path. If the score keepers never change the metric you aren’t going to change the behavior.
    In terms of CI being only about money we were required to do 20% of our projects on safety related issues. When you are reducing fatalities that is something that is difficult to place a dollar benefit on so you don’t. We produced the benefits we were asked to produce essentially with 80% of the projects we took on.
    As far as consultant hacks. Consultants do not run companies. How many people believe that any consultant walked into Bossidy’s office and stated making decisions for Allied Signal or into Welch’s office and made decisions for GE. I have seen more crap deployments come from internal quality guys trying to build a reputation and don’t even realize that their constipated thought process is part of the problem (sorry Shooter that wasn’t directed at you but I know you have seen it as well).
    At the end of the day this is about business and that is about money in terms of ROI. If you want seat in first class then you pay extra and that means you better contribute to the success of the company – in particularly the shareholders. We always pound our chests about VOC until we get in one of these strings then suddenly we all become Mother Teresa and continuously improve stuff for the good of mankind. That is crap, leads to a short career and doesn’t help anyone.
    I knew I should have stopped reading this thread a long time ago.
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #167451

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    SSS,
    You are going to have to have DFSS and TRIZ after all look at the difference in made for Edison ( I was going to put one of those smiley faces up but I just couldn’t do it).
    Regards

    0
    #167452

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Mike,
    Always good to get your views and they are most welcome.  In the end, we’re not involved in some philanthropic endeavor.  It is always a balancing act that takes into account the needs and capabilities of the business and the customers’ needs.  Unfortunately, many have lost their sense of balance, in my opinion.
    In the final analysis, if it were a perfect world and there weren’t companies that need our help, we’d be out of business, with nothing to improve.  I guess it’s like taxes and death: it is a certainty that there will always be problems that need solving, and companies that need our help to solve them.
    Hope the trip across the pond was a good one and that things are going well, amigo!  You got out of Dodge just in time.  East Texas is freezing today – even saw a few flakes of snow!  I think someone sent the cold weather my way in retribution for voicing my opinions on this thread.  The price I pay for being opinionated.
    Shooter

    0
    #167453

    Deanb
    Participant

    As revenue man myself, I do not disagree with your points. I was responding to costs relative to a post by GrayR. Excessive cost focus is a “constipated” form of thinking as you might say, and SS folks do tend to dwell in this direction too much (yourself excluded). Not just from business school training, but SS training too!However, I do not consider good corporate stakeholder stewardship to be non-value added, non-economic to the interests of the firm, or Mother Teresa-like. It is good business, which is why world-class companies do more of it than others.Like the safety related projects you worked on. These are essential, but not driven by the same revenue and cost factors we typically see. I like to hear more of this kind of project taking place. Stakeholder issues sit with management more than SS, however SS practitioners do play a part in their own way in the projects they scope and execute. It is OK for SS practitioners to express alternatives out of concern for stakeholders to their sponsors. Many will appreciate this level of professionalism.Every professional discipline has these kinds of discussions, as they should. We are not merely hired guns to give management anything it thinks it desires, using any means. We have a natural role with bounds, and most execs I work with appreciate initiatives that are not going to crudely destabilize their prized stakeholders. The problem is there are too many execs that do not reason this way. As an investor, I would rather invest in a company with good stakeholder relations, than with one that does not and is always in litigation with its “friends.”Regards,Dean

    0
    #167454

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    SSS,
    We have lost our balance. Everyone keeps talking like there is a significant number of people that believe SS will fix anything. I have only heard that once and it was said on a stage in Indianapolis which immediately marginalizes it.
    Trip was as good as could be expected on Delta. I am glad you got the snow it is raining like a cow p_ssing on a flat rock here. Opinionated is good. I think you posted earlier that you were passionate about this stuff – that is what makes the difference.
    Regards

    0
    #167455

    SiggySig
    Member

    And as I always tell my GBs, metrics, measurement, and statistics (along with the many other tools in LSS) do not mean you get you turn your head off. As often than not, the solution (at least in my transactional world) is a duh! Our magic trick is just naming the duh, making the change, and developing a method to keep the duh from coming back.On a separate note, DeanB, is there a way I can contact you directly? Or you can contact me at crashjames (at) gmail.com. Cheers.

    0
    #167456

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    The snow is pretty to look at, as long as I don’t have to deal with the cold that comes with it.  Four years with you Marines in Yuma burned the tolerance for cold out of me.  Yeah, that’s it, blame it on the Marines!  You know how we former squids are.
    Be well, my friend.
    Shooter

    0
    #167457

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Deanb,
    We seem to getting to the point where we are in some form of concensus.
    Regards
     

    0
    #167458

    Stevo
    Member

    Hey Mike – I need to apologize.  I used to make fun of you for being wordy.  But this thread has you beat.
     
    Take care,
     
    Stevo

    0
    #167459

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I grew up in that part of the world. I know exactly what you mean. I stay south of Austin when there is snow.
    Just remember your own guys stuck you in Yuma. I got 29 Stumps where it was desert and it snowed in the winter. I would have traded for Yuma any day.
    It wasn’t like we didn’t get enough rain in Texas this summer but now it is summer here and raining. I think we are all getting web feet.
    Regards

    0
    #167460

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stevo,
    That was why I had to jump in. I was feeling left out. Old guys with to much time on our hands.
    I hope you fixed that wood chucking issue you posted about?
    Regards

    0
    #167461

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I know, huh .  Some things just don’t fit into a Dick and Jane or Cliffnotes version.  Life can be tough that way.

    0
    #167462

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Just remember, Mike – we Navy guys always give the Corps a ride when they need to go someplace  ;-)  I always liked that line from A Few Good Men.  I was priceless!

    0
    #167471

    UW
    Member

    Shooter,The point I’m trying to make is Six Sigma is indelibly linked to Mikel Harry, whether you like it or not. Given the fact you and others disagree with some of what Harry has branded, why not travel full circle and make up for the last opportunity all those years ago, and devise a new standard – one that represents your core beliefs, and the beliefs of others.The only thing you and others will accomplish here is to immortalise Harry’s Six Sigma!U. Wanke

    0
    #167472

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I agree with you that he is indelibly linked to six sigma.  As for devising a new standard, many of us don’t need to and it’s why we didn’t and don’t need Six Sigma to do our work of continual improvement.  We find that standard in the teachings and theories of W. Edwards Deming which are indelible in their own right, as is the man.
    Regardless our guru of choice, the key is that we seek improvement for our clients, companies and selves.  I do thank you for your contributions to the discussion and wish you all the best.
    Shooter

    0
    #167476

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    SSS,
    I’m not sure where it is today but in the early 70’s all our medics were Navy. There is more than one former Marine (no such thing as an ex-Marine) that owes their life to someone from the Navy. That is priceless.
    Regards

    0
Viewing 76 posts - 1 through 76 (of 76 total)

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