iSixSigma

Op Ex Program Philosophical Question/Rant

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Op Ex Program Philosophical Question/Rant

Viewing 76 posts - 1 through 76 (of 76 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51622

    Kluttz
    Member

    You tend to see a disproportionate number of questions in this forum asking for a simple answer to a complex scenario (ie – if I have 1,000 widgets, how many should I sample? OR if my process is performing at xx%, what should my improvement goal be? OR how long should my Define phase take? OR should I implement Six Sigma in my organization?).  Almost everyone seems to be looking for a black & white answer to a gray problem.  Legitimate answers always depend on a number of other factors – cost to collect data, NDT vs DT, corporate culture, current business goals, competitive benchmarks, available resources, etc.  The very best answer to 99% of the questions posted here is “it depends”.  Any good Black Belt or process improvement professional should know that. 
    Whe leads do my question…..
    Do most companies and/or Op Ex deployments really understand that there needs to be a cogent thought process to problem-solving OR do they just plug & chug data into Minitab/Excel/SigmaXL, etc and use whatever answer it spits out? 
    A good sampling strategy is about much more than just population and confidence intervals.  Available resources and corporate culture should be taken into consideration when scoping a DMAIC project.  Sometimes a kaizen can be the absolute worst solution to a problem.  Reducing defects isn’t always a good use of project time.  All these statements should be “no duh’s”. 
    So are we just turning out Belts & champions who only religiously rely on stat software without any pre-thought or planning?  Are we trying automate decision-making and problem-solving?  Because that’s everything wrong about process improvement programs.  It’s not just the stats.  It’s not just tools.  It’s not just terminology.  It’s about truly understanding your process, truly understanding your organization’s strategy, and truly understanding the problem you’re trying to solve.  And if you don’t have that, then you’re just wasting time and money.  The statistical tools are just a means to an end as opposed to the methodology itself. 
    So to summarize, just what sort of shenanigans are going on out there?

    0
    #179431

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Way to dampen all the silliness and frivolity of today’s posts!!!!!You raise some good points. I agree that if it was Mini alone, we wouldn’t need Belts. Mini and it’s peers are tools to help speed up the analysis so a good decision can be made. Unfortunately, much training seems to focus in on the crunching process rather than the underlying thought process. Most training seems to be trying to fit 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag and then of course, let’s include a bunch of stuff on Lean and Change Management. And then let’s do it all online so we dispense with all focus. Frankly, I don’t worry too much about the training component because the process I am familiar with has a large coaching/mentoring component where the reality of life is discovered and dealt with. Without that hands on coaching element, you are likely to have Belts just plugging and chugging. The question and challenge is does Senior Leadership see the need and value to do this coaching/mentoring or do they just want to do some training and create legions of belts? Additionally, does anyone really coach/mentor and help senior leadership understand reality and what answers they should be asking? Or are they happy to dump the responsibility on some Deployment guy/gal and get on with business as usual? To raise an additional point. Are there sufficient quantities of experienced knowledgeable consultants/MBBs and other professionals who have the ability to share reality? Or is the industry relying on a MBB who may have had a couple of projects in a single company/industry and expect that the advice being dispensed is worthwhile? There has been an explosion of MBBs and Consultants in the past few years. We read the posts about all the people that want to join the profession. But, as we have discussed over and over, there is no standard BOK, no standards for certification and certainly no guide to competency. That can’t be helping the situation.

    0
    #179433

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    It’s plug and chug because there is no depth to the training and expecially BB is postioned as an end point, not a starting point.

    0
    #179434

    Kluttz
    Member

    To tie this back into the general frivolity of today’s posts, what got me started was just going back through some of the older posts.  I couldn’t help but think that some of these people DESERVE to be mocked and derided.  Sad but true.
    I was a Black Belt at a major automation company.  I was required to complete 2 projects per year to maintain certification.  I led and completed 3 projects where I teamed with one of our customers to minimize weight variation in their product.  We ended up reducing variation by about 70% and saving them about 3 million dollars per year. 
    When I submitted the storyboard to our deployment champion to count towards my project completion requirements, I was told that my project didn’t count because I didn’t use one of the tools listed on his Measurement Phase checklist.  So apparently it didn’t matter that the project generated revenue and was wildly successful (and used statistical tools he’d never even heard of), it didn’t count as a “real” Six Sigma project because I didn’t feel the need to use a tool that was on his handy-dandy checklist. 
    I don’t work there anymore. 
    So if there’s a message I’d like to communicate to that particular deployment champion and anyone else interested in Process Improvement as a career path, its this – software and checklists will NEVER be a substitute for actual thought and strategy.  They may be a effective SUPPLEMENT, but they’re useless on their own.  I know a lot of “certified” Black Belts that can recite the sample size equation who I also wouldn’t let anywhere near my process or project team. 
    Don’t be one of those Black Belts.

    0
    #179436

    SiggySig
    Member

    Or as I tell new belts, just because you have stats skills and tools now does not mean you can just shut your brain off…As you say, there’s a lot more to it than getting the right p-value…At GE, the top quality brass have basically declared the last 10 years a failure as far as Six Sigma is concerned. Turns out all those inspection points that got eliminated were preventing defects from escaping!

    0
    #179442

    Taylor
    Participant

    Union of CS
    Wow, that stuff sounds so familiar. Do you work for Tyco?
    The world is full of idiots, and most of them are boss’s and the reason they are is because they cannot do anything else, nor would we want them to.
    As a black belt early on most of project time was spent developing the perfect Presentation, not actually working on the project. Similar story about not using “ALL” the tools on the “Checklist” what a bunch of crap. Great for green belt project Training, not real world lets go save some money projects.
    just my two cents

    0
    #179443

    SiggySig
    Member

    Chad, sounds like you are familiar with the engineering quality group at GE – the best pitches I’ve ever seen, but sadly limited in the actuall effectiveness.
    The quality leader I’m thinking of is a PhD – explains everything…

    0
    #179444

    Bill M
    Participant

    Isn’t it amazing how the workers always think the bosses are idiots. Wonder how they all got to those positions while the complainers still work for them… Not all bosses can be related to the owners. Maybe the worker’s world is just so small…..

    0
    #179446

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    You are right Bill. Not all bosses are idiots. I have had some who are but have had some great ones as well. Not all workers are idiots either. I have worked with plenty of both. The good bosses usually had similar traits that at least for me, made them good bosses. They were very bright, quick on the uptake, had walked in my shoes before and understood what I was doing, treated me with respect, let me do my job without interference but with support as needed, advocated on my behalf with respect to compensation issues, sheltered me from nonsense flowing down from above, had my complete trust, genuinely worked to improve me both personally as well as professionally, watched my back and never threw me under the bus. And sometimes they were really HOT also but that was secondary.

    0
    #179494

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Union of Conjoined Scientists,
    It was a lot easier to type your other name and when you have someone tracking your spelling errors that reduces the opportunity count.
    What sort of shenanigens? It depends.
    I have cited the model from “The Deviants Advantage” in several other posts and that model pretty well describes the issue you are talking about. Basically things are deveolped by people who generall live on the finge. As an idea moves to social acceptance it gets more advocates but it also loses original content. The current state of SS fits perfectly,
    When we began the deployments at Allied and GE certification was really an ancillary effect of the deployment. The point was to improve the company and some people got certified in the process along the way. The idea of not being promotable unless you had been involved in SS was used to align the various groups for support. That idea seemed to morph into the idea that SS experience would get you promoted and/or a raise. That belief created the certification factories that operate at various competancies. Now we have seem the Six Sigma Consulting industry become the Six Sigma Training industry for a couple reasons. First if you are a training company you are taxed differently. Second it is more profitable to hire some drone to stand up there and teach stats tools than to get someone with actual competance and the best part is that generally the customer cannot distinguish the difference immediately. Consequently the plug and chug crowd.
    There is a basic difference in the way it is taught. These days people tend to use SS to teach tools rather than use tools to understand the SS methodology. The reason we have the plug and chug is that people are being taught the methodology as a mindless process where you just execute steps much like the old dance schools that put footprints on the floor. Define 1-2-3-4 Measure 1-2-3-4 etc.
    The worst part with that mentality is that deployments are being sold in the same manner. Mindless excution of some generic plan but that mindless plan represents risk abeitment in executing a CI plan. If you have some generic recipe and it fails you just point and tell people I did the plan talk to the consultant. If you actually get off your butt and generate an indigenous plan and execute you can win big but you lose the fall guy if it fails.
    There is an even more basic difference to what is being taught today. When we rolled out of Motorola SS was “breakthrough strategy.” Very few companies these days even know what that means. It has become “variation reduction” so that this whole thing is more palatable to the old TQM crowd and they get to sit back and say “see it is just TQM repackaged and I have been doing this for years.”  They opened the door for SS because they didn’t change anything and now they are emasculating SS so it fits their same inert lifestyle. There is a difference between understanding and driving breakthrough than simply variation reduction and it isn’t a new idea. Juran documented it in 1964. Taguchi quantified it in the Loss Function. These aren’t diametrically opposed ideas. They are all bits and pieces that fit together like a CI pointillism.
    Teaching tools is safe. They are predictable. They have been tested over time. Teaching what you are suggesting – results driven CI is much riskier. It involves the change management people aspect and that scares the crap out of people so they do what is safe.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #179506

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,Take a deep breath and count to four. I get back to you after I finish reading this…. Saturday I think.HF Chris

    0
    #179513

    Kluttz
    Member

    I guess my biggest concern is that the consumerization of Six Sigma has made it more difficult to market what I think is the spirit of CI principles.  I mean, why pay a tailor to measure your inseam for proper fit when you can just buy off the rack?  Sure, the pants may ride up your crotch and make your butt itch, but at least you saved 8 bucks.  Why pay someone to come in and tailor a solution to your specific business needs when you can by an off-the-shelf deployment package?  Why pay market value for an experienced BB when you can get a Online U. Black Belt for half the cost?
    What makes it even worse if that the failures of the plug & chuggers sullies the reputations of those who take their craft seriously.  I’m in the middle of a deployment now where we’re completely avoiding SS terminology so we don’t have to deal with the negative stigma.  I don’t know how many times I’ve heard someone dismiss CI because some BB they worked with previously was a worthless tool. 
    It inhibits my ability to to my job.
    One point to add – I’ve come to the conclusion that the cost structure  of corporate Six Sigma training has also contributed to its dumbing-down.  The firm who conducted the BB training at my previous company charge a flat fee for up to 24 attendees.  So of course my employer packed the class in order to spread the cost across as many business groups as possible.  So instead of selecting 8-10 people with the right skillsets and philosophies, they threw in whatever other warm bodies they could find.  That definitely diminished the training effectiveness for the qualified people.  They had to teach down to the “management training program” candidates at the expense of the others. 
    I would love to see a BB training course that devoted a big chunk of time to change management.  It seems that the expectation is that you use the tools, come up with an improvement idea, calculate the projected savings then have the executive staff and frontline personnel fully embrace the concept and start dedicating themselves towards its implementation.  Thats just not how its worked in my experience.

    0
    #179516

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chris,
    If you had to see the riduculous crap we bid against it would drive you nuts.
    I have a cometitor who refused to be involved in project selection and implementation. They initially would not do design work on the front end until they found out we would. They came back with 1 year to design the deployment and we are around 2-4 weeks.
    I have another competitor who has the terms hypothesis testing confused with multi-vari testing (charts). We now have people running around telling people they will run a multi-vari and they run something like a t test. The difference she is very inexpensive.
    Counting to 4 won’t do it.
    Look forward to talking with you.
    Regards

    0
    #179518

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Union of Conjoined Scientists,
    I guess if a person is willing to stand in front of the shareholders with their pants crawling up their butt and tell them they spent $X and didn’t get anything for it, the issue becomes who are you choosing for leadership.
    I am probably going to piss a load of people off with this. The Quality profession has had for years the reputation of a place you stick the people that can’t do anything and they have to much time with the company to fire them. It has always been difficult to be taken seriously in this line of work even before SS. The idea of quantification of benefits changed the game considerably but it is amazing how many companies don’t do that or they estimate it without the involvement of the financial people. It takes away the credibility of the program.
    I can understand the flat fee for the classroom basically because a good MBB, that is also good at training, can pretty effectively handle a class of about 25. That is with the assumption that you do not put slugs in the room. If you go to that post from the other guy about posting behavior – that is the kind of guy that will load a class up with people just like him because obviously anyone who isn’t just like him isn’t professional. Those are crap change agents. They are more concerned about style than they are about substance. One of the reasons I like Predictive Index (PI) on BB’s is there are profiles that are really not suited to do the job and there is a profile that tends to be perfect for the job. If you don’t like PI pick something that uses data to select people other than some corporate clone that uses himself as the model and picks based on opinion. You are teaching a data driven process how big of a leap of faith is it to pick BB’s using data.
    The other issue is that some companies feel obligated to certify whom ever attends. I don’t. If it is our class and they don’t make it we don’t certify them. If they don’t do the work we get them out of the class. You sort them out as you go not at the end. You are right it diminishes the training experience for the rest of the class if you leave them in. It also lets everyone else in the class know there has been a paradigm shift.
    There is an interesting book out right now called “Outliers” and not in the statistical sense. They do a pretty good job of throwing out the IQ as selection criteria for success, although I am sure it matters at some level. There is a discussion around the 10,000 hours of experience to have some one have a level of expertice and they use Bill Gates as one example. Look at how many deployments are done under people with one deployment (or none – you would be surprized how many of the guru’s out there wrote their book or started their SS company with no SS experience). A big problem for a successful deployment is that the artifacts that are studied by the “benchmarkers” are projects, the same thing you study on the unsuccessful deployments. The general opinion when you walk away is that SS is about doing projects. To your point if I do a ton of projects and have such total crap change management skills the only number I changes was COPQ and it went up by the cost of the project.
    We have had the discussion on this forum about how bigger is better (not refering to the Darth discussion) and if you aren’t striving to be the biggest you are a loser. I don’t believe that. There are great guys out there that do SS training and mentoring and subcontract to different consulting companies. They work when they want and don’t when they don’t want to. They have a great lifestyle and make a nice living. They deliver results. Unfortunately that is a small market. If a consulting/training company can hire a freshout instead of a 10k hour guy for less their margin increases and maybe they get an extra days vacation in the Carribean. They certainly don’t put that person in the classroom for your benefit. We have allowed this thing to be driven to individual certifications for people who can never be as experienced as those people who have been involved in an actual deployment and been measured on the actual benefits they drive to the bottom line.
    I watched a guy who would definately be over the 10,000 hour mark walk into a classroom of people who were learning DOE. He had then close their training material (that is an entirely differnt mess) and computers with Minitab (and their email) and started to have a conversation about DOE. worked an example on the board with made up data and then discussed it in terms of the projects that they were working on. In about 4 hours he straightened out a class that an instructor had tied in knots for about 3 days. Those guys don’t want to be pounded into some consulting company mold so they run as independents. They are outliers.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #179520

    Bill M
    Participant

    I can’t tell for sure however it appears this “short story” was written to conclude that training companies have “molds” and are no good. Is that correct? I really don’t see any other point being made.

    0
    #179522

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill M,
    I assume the “short Story” was meant to be some type of a dig because of the length when in actuality there is no standard length for a short story so it could have been shorter and still been a short story.
    As with anything that is written or spoken, it is only what you take away from it and that would be a function of a lot of different things.
    If that is what you got out of it at least it wasn’t a complete waste of your time.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #179523

    Bill M
    Participant

    OK, sorry about the short story dig, which it was. However, some seem to think the length of the post makes a comment as to its veracity; when all it is many times is a word salad. All I saw was that your opinion is training/consulting firms don’t care about the quality or impact of their services, they exist solely to “book days” I guess. So, the question becomes  – “Who does care?”

    0
    #179525

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill M,
    That would be where you look (you can substitute “go” here if you like) to the format of the Discussion Forum. It indents (or should some don’t seem to be able to figure this out) under the post that you are responding to. You follow the string (by looking at what is indented under what post) so you can pick up the discusssion thread. Just like when you learned how to outline in elementary school.
    In this case it eventually leads back to the UoCS original post which went to the quality of the people that are being certified – is it just plug and chug. Yes in a lot of cases and that is because the market filled up with training companies doing billable days. There are still other options.
    If long post bother you that they are word salads, don’t read them. It is like television – just change the channel. There are people in this world that read books and there are people in this world that prefer comic books. That is a personal preference.
    This whole thing isn’t really all that complicated. Now if you have another issue and you just want to dance around a bit then I can just change the channel because I don’t really have much interest in dancing around with someone who won’t say what is on their mind.
    If you have ever been published you find that in the first few days it is out you will get phone calls that love what you did and you will get phone calls that hate it. Nobody will please everyone and if you try or worry about it you will drive yourself crazy.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #179528

    Bill M
    Participant

    You out talked me – I give up trying to understand your point.

    0
    #179536

    Kluttz
    Member

    I must have missed the part where anybody said that training/consulting firms don’t care about their quality or business impact.  Obviously some care more than others.  And some focus more on billable days than others.  That’s just normal distribution and hardly controversial.
    My biggest concern is that many consultants and trainers don’t KNOW that their quality is lacking.  They don’t know because they’re simply regurgitating whatever they learned in their own fluff training.  Or they don’t know because they’ve never worked more than a couple projects (at best) in a single industry.  Or they’ve done a single deployment and assumed that one size fits all. 
    So that’s part of the problem. 
    My other peeve is someone who attends an online BB class or is selected fresh out of school to go to a company-sponsored BB class, then has the balls to think they’re just as valuable and marketable as someone who has led dozens of projects, driven multiple deployments and mentored more than their share of other Belts.  They’re usually the ones who come to this forum and submit posts asking how many boxes of potatoes to inspect or where to find free GB practice tests. 
    Based on how defensive you sound, I’d guess that you work for a consultant/training company.  Don’t take this personal. 
     

    0
    #179537

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Wow.Pointillism?Are you getting sophisticated on us?Just kidding – it’s a great mental picture if people understand the
    word.

    0
    #179539

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    I’ll say that is correct.That and Mike has chosen to share personal experience with
    everyone because it’s something some of us are passionate about.The truth is you don’t create a culture by training and certifying
    and that is what most Six Sigma consulting companies sell. My opinion is that it’s not worth buying. I can get better results
    with a well thought out and articulated strategy, that all leadership
    is measured and rewarded against. Addition of tools and a thought
    process on top of that gets even better results.

    0
    #179543

    Obiwan
    Participant

    Darth…you actually had a boss that was HOT?  Bet that didn’t last :-)
    As for good and idiot bosses, I cannot agree more.  The most interesting thing that I have found, however, is that my long term opinion of a particular boss may be completely different than my immediate and short term position!  Some that I felt were COMPLETE idiots when I worked for them, became more intelligent as I did not work for them.  Kind of that “teenager growing up thing”…
    The reverse has also been very true!

    0
    #179545

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Gary,
    We say the Monet stuff in Musee d’Orsay a long time ago but it was pretty amazing. Seemed appropriate.
    Regards

    0
    #179546

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    UoCS,
    We are on the same page. At the risk of rationalizing what is being delivered a lot of those consulting firms deliver what they do because that is what the market asks for. The market is asking for it because they have done some superficial benchmarking or read a couple books and they don’t understand what to ask for.
    Sorry about the long post but as Gary said it is an emotional issue and as you titled the string my response actually became a rant.
    It is frustrating. Regulation of the consultants/BOK seems to be an answer but unfortunately nobody has really stepped up to fill that void that anyone really trusts.
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #179549

    Taylor
    Participant

    Gary
    Although I agree with you on your last point about getting better results, the problem exist of most companies simply not having that person that can lead well thought out articulated projects, so they go to something that is ABC 123. How ABC 123 is taught and measured well be the topic of discussion for years. Many companies have had success and report results but experience has shown me that the higher ups want to see style over substance.
    With that in mind comes a hord of people that sell Six Sigma just that way, fancy presentations, over the top number plugging, etc etc. In the end a Six Sigma deployment was completed. Was it a first class deployment, probably not, will it get results, probably. The interesting thing that happens, is what Mike was stating about Personallity Types, some guys just get it with even the worst training and some just will never get it with the best of training.
    In my earlier post I made it sound like most boss’s were idiots. Probably a little harsh and not meant in the litteral sense. If you do Personallity Profiles on corporate and mid management you find that about 90% of those guys are of the same mold, Very Dominant Very single minded Focused and Organized. Although these types are great at business, they suck at understanding the Analytical types. But many times it takes the Dominant type pushing the analyticals to ever get anything accomplished. If you find a Dominant Analytical mind then you have a Real Project Manager. So PI selection is a very valid and real point that companies overlook in deployment. In a past life the company I worked for wanted to train the entire plant on Six Sigma and have them do projects. As One of 3 BBs in the plant you can imagine my horror. Luckily some common sense washed over the VP and it was cut back to just managers and supervisors. But of course even that was too much as the stack holder bias was un real.
    In the end it all depends on what you want. Problem is, the disconnect between vision and reality.

    0
    #179550

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    What does your PI profile look like?

    0
    #179551

    Taylor
    Participant

    A little more dominant than analytical, I tend to make decisions based more on experience than data driven.

    0
    #179552

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I call it management by perception ..

    0
    #179558

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    You need to find Gary’s old blog on which personality types make the best BB’s. It is the high A low C (dominant and a sense of urgency) that really makes a difference. Like you said (I think) it isn’t the only factor. The profile and a single digit IQ will probably not work either. The selection of BB’s is probably the one area when we arrive at a company we are pretty close to useless on unless there is something like PI. Anyone can interview people but that is still a subjective thing.
    Like your point that some good guys will get it with bad training and some good guys will never get it. Pretty accurate.
    When people execute the Define 1-2-3-4, Measure 1-2-3-4 etc you end up screwing up someone like UoCS. He does a good project with results and the only thing some Six Sigma Mambo instructor knows is that they missed a tool. Why are the Dominican’s considered great merengue dancers? They feel the music. They didn’t learn steps. When you deliver Six Sigma in suppository form you shouldn’t expect buy in, results and sustainability it just won’t happen.
    You also made a point about dominant managers not having patients for analyticals. Valid point. We were always taught to speak to management in there language – money. They control the whole deal. If you are trying to communicate with them you had better lean to speak their language. The worst thing you get from an analytical type is the endless wandering around explaining every detail. A high A will sit still for an average of about 10 minutes before they start taking over. You need to deliver you message that fast – and the length of presentation when we trained Allied and GE? 10 minutes.
    I walked out of a GE presentation during the second wave of training with a VP saying “If I see another f___g MSA I won’t come to another one of these.” SS needs the VP’s support a lot more than he needs them. If you give them results they continue to let you ride in first class rather than economy. It is business.
    What I see is that the customers only know to talk about projects. Consultants respond by teaching the steps to do a project. It takes more.
    Before I have to listen to some inane salad comment again – basically were agree.
    BTW – High A (about 4 sigma), Low B, Low C (B&C about 3 sigma) and average D.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #179559

    Taylor
    Participant

    Yep Agree

    0
    #179560

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Chad,
    A succinct answer like that and the salad guy will be back.
    Regards

    0
    #179563

    Bill M
    Participant

    That comment makes no sense Mike.

    0
    #179564

    Cone
    Participant

    Bill,Just some unsolicted advice. If you have something to offer here,
    show it to us. Showing up here and going after Mike for no apparent reason isn’t
    going to get any traction. If you have a good reason to screw around with Mike, show your
    cards, I like messing around with Mike as much as anyone. But
    …Mike is my friend and one of the top 5 practioneers of efficiency
    and effectiveness strategies in the world. Don’t be foolish enough
    to believe you can out think him.

    0
    #179565

    Bill M
    Participant

    I asked for clarification from his posting wherein it appeared to me he took the position that all consulting/training firms are incompetent. I asked if that was his point and, if so, who is competent – in his opinion. His response was another eloquent (at least in his mind I’m sure) post that evaded the question so I said I give up and I exited the string.
    Chad gave a brief response to Mike’s post & said that should stir me up. I said that makes no sense. And it doesn’t because it in no way relates to my original question.
    PS: Top 5 in the world – that’s ridiculous.

    0
    #179571

    Cone
    Participant

    Who do you think belong in the top 5?

    0
    #179576

    Bill M
    Participant

    I have no idea. Neither do you or anybody else. That’s why I said it’s ridiculous. There is no rating system. If you are a SS professional you  know that to make such a statement is ridiculous since there is no measurement instrument nor scale to detect such things.
    Besides, if any of us were in th top 5 of anything I doubt we would be spending time with silly posts like these.

    0
    #179579

    GB
    Participant

    It’s clear that Bill doesn’t know who Mike is…
    As for top 5…Nah.
    -More like top 3.

    0
    #179581

    Bill M
    Participant

    Guess it’s clear what you want to do for him in Miami. Maybe that’s why so many of you are giddy about going.

    0
    #179587

    Kluttz
    Member

    Just to get a few disclosures out of the way…

    I’ve never met Mike
    I’ve never met you, Bill
    I’m not going to Miami
    I’m not looking for a job so I have no incentive to blow smoke up anyone’s butt.
    I know a lot of BB, MBB, Lean Masters and other process improvement professionals.  When you’ve been around a little while, you get a feel for who knows their stuff and who doesn’t. 
    Mike knows his stuff. 
    Personally, Ive found his posts very insightful.  It doesn’t seem like he suffers fools gladly, but then again, neither do I.  So while I don’t know where he ranks as far as improvement professions go, he certainly has my respect.
    You, on the other hand?  I haven’t you offer anything that’s really made me think.  Mostly non sequitirs.   Your post here was a complete straw man and didn’t merit much of a response. 
    Just my unsolicited objective opinion.

    0
    #179589

    Bill M
    Participant

    Reasonable expression of opinion Union. I harbor no malice towards Mike – that was not the point of my post, and I agree with you about the depth of knowledge he has displayed herein.
    That said, I still say it is a ridiculous statement to say he is among the top 5 or 3 or whatever. No measurement system exists…if I’m wrong then inform me of that system.
    My first challenge in this string was to Mike asking what the point was of him knocking training/consulting firms. I asked if that is true, then who is good. I’ve not seen an answer to that as yet either. 

    0
    #179599

    Kluttz
    Member

    Your “challenge” was a straw man, and a lame one at that.  If you’re not sure what a straw man is, then feel free to google it.  Regardless, I addressed it and it and my response was seconded. You can keep digging this hole, but I think you do so at the expense of your own credibility.

    0
    #179603

    Mikel
    Member

    The answer of who is not good is easy –
    SSA
    BMG
    SSQ
    SBTI
    GG/Accenture
    AIT

    There are good people who work for each of these firms, but there is no overall guarantee of having knowledgeable practioners to lead an implementation. Some of these firms value loyalty to owner over knowledge. Others think that GE experience is everything (it’s not even close). Most are hiring smart BB’s with one or two cycles of learning.
    Who is good? Mike is one. Mario Perez-Wilson is another. Ernesto Garcia is another. What is common amoung those that are good. They have all stayed away from big, because big demands you take implementations where the client has no clue or leadership. Big demands you hire for cost and that you hire people you don’t actually know.
    Bill – Mike’s point is exactly correct. Who are you seeking to protect?

    0
    #179614

    Bill M
    Participant

    Not trying to protect anybody. Mike essentially dissed everybody so I was asking who he did think was competent. He didn’t answer. You have. Thank you.
    PS: I don’t believe I buy your supposition that big means bad; typically that means the market accepts you. But you’re entitled to your opinion.

    0
    #179615

    Taylor
    Participant

    Bill M
    Please explain this:
    “Chad gave a brief response to Mike’s post & said that should stir me up. I said that makes no sense. And it doesn’t because it in no way relates to my original question.”
    First of all, I couldn’t give a damn if I stir you up or not, second, I never said that in any of my responses. My response was to Gary Cone, Mike replied to my response in which we are in agreement just saying things a different way.
    How you drew your question from Mike’s post makes no sense to me. But this further illustrates my point about perception and reality.
     

    0
    #179622

    Observer
    Participant

    Have been following this thread a bit.  Who are the top 3?  Certainly Harry and Shroeder are there.  Probably Geodfrey of Juran as well.  What’s the criteria and is this by vote or some objective measurement?  This Mike guy writes long posts and none of the others ever post so does that qualify him for the Top 3.  What about this Stan guy?  Is he for real? 

    0
    #179626

    Taylor
    Participant

    Observer
    If you want to know who this “Mike Guy” is I suggest you do a key word search and read some of his post. You will find out real quick just who he is. As for Stan, yes he is for real, and probably forgot more about Six Sigma than most will ever learn

    0
    #179631

    Bill M
    Participant

    OK Chad, I’ll make an effort to clarify this.
    You gave a short reply to a post by Mike. He answered with something to the effect “That’s a succinct reply, it will probably stir up the word salad guy.”
    Mike was referring to me since I called his lengthy post just a word salad. I made no comment about your post. I was simply saying – Mike I called a lengthy post a word salad – how would a brief post “stir me up”?
    There’s an explanation – as if you care about what was really said.

    0
    #179635

    Kluttz
    Member

    I haven’t seen such a cogent and mature conversation such as this one since I watched High School Musical 3 with my daughter. 

    0
    #179636

    Bill M
    Participant

    You’re likely correct Union. However, here’s what’s interesting about it. Chad and a few others will defend Mike and a few others to the death regardless of the validity of anybody’s post. Pretty amazing really that some are incapable of assessing the value of the content of a post without seeing who posted it. Study in sociology I guess.

    0
    #179638

    Taylor
    Participant

    First of all Bill, I was replying to Mike in that I agree with his post. Whatever the two of you have going in regards to a Word Salad I dont care and such is the reason I did not reply to his post with which you seem to have taken conflict with. It is amazing that you are asking about the validity of a post from a person whom has completed 100’s of deployments all over the world, and has been involved with Six Sigma since its beginning…………Sociology has nothing to do with facts my friend.
     

    0
    #179641

    Bill M
    Participant

    So anything Mike says about anything must be true since he has completed….? Is that correct? Wow. Good thing you weren’t a follower of Jim Jones. Guess you would have taken a drink from the cup also.

    0
    #179642

    Bill M
    Participant

    Oh, one other question Chad. “Mike has completed 100’s of deployments.” Can’t help but look at the data – I mean that’s what we do right?
    So the minimum of “100’s” is 200, right? So he’s been at it about 20 years let’s say – since the late 80’s. So he has completed an average of 10 deployments per year for 20 years. Wow, some cycle time – completing a deployment in just over a month. Not been something I’ve experienced – most take a great deal longer.
    Chad, are you really involved in SS yourself? How can you say such things and not grasp what the numbers tell you? As with the “top 5” thingy – this is ridiculous. You guys are throwing around data as if no one can interpret it.

    0
    #179646

    Taylor
    Participant

    Bill M
    I really dont know what chip you have on your shoulder, but taking stabs at posters like Mike, and now the Dr in the other thread will really get you no where. If you want to get into how many deployments Mike has completed as Six Sigma consultant and the validity of those I’m sure he would be more than happy to do that. As  for attacks on me, I really don’t care one way or the other.
    In the beginning this thread was a Rant, meant to point out the obstacles that exist with some deployments and managers that manage them. The original poster wants to know where the real focus is. Is it Check list and following the procedure to a T or saving time, money and adding productivity and effeciency to the bottom line. Several of the post replies addressed those reasons. Rather than BS around the subject why dont you offer your opinion as to why you think that is, instead of criticizing others. So far I’ve seen you answer very little, well really nothing except how long you train GB’s which I don’t agree with either, but thats my opinion, and as long as  your customer is happy then who is to criticize.

    0
    #179647

    Taylor
    Participant

    Bill M
    I really dont know what chip you have on your shoulder, but taking stabs at posters like Mike, and now the Dr in the other thread will really get you no where. If you want to get into how many deployments Mike has completed as Six Sigma consultant and the validity of those I’m sure he would be more than happy to do that. As  for attacks on me, I really don’t care one way or the other.
    In the beginning this thread was a Rant, meant to point out the obstacles that exist with some deployments and managers that manage them. The original poster wants to know where the real focus is. Is it Check list and following the procedure to a T or saving time, money and adding productivity and effeciency to the bottom line. Several of the post replies addressed those reasons. Rather than BS around the subject why dont you offer your opinion as to why you think that is, instead of criticizing others. So far I’ve seen you answer very little, well really nothing except how long you train GB’s which I don’t agree with either, but thats my opinion, and as long as  your customer is happy then who is to criticize.

    0
    #179648

    Bill M
    Participant

    Come on Chad instead of deflecting – answer my question. How does one do 100’s of deployment in 20 +/- years? Not possible is it?

    0
    #179650

    tcm
    Member

    Hi,
    I know that your question is targeted at Chad, but i would like to express my opinion of ” How does one do 100’s of deployment in 20 +/- years?”
    It’s possible to achieve that. It depends on how do you define “Deployment”. If a project juz need a week to complete, does that count as a deployment? Or do you have something like “A deployment is >=6mths”?
    *Juz 2cents*

    0
    #179651

    Bill M
    Participant

    Well, those actually are relevant comments Tcm. A deployment isn’t even a defined term, so again, how can you count them? In this last week I’ve heard supposed data experts throw around comments about “top 5 in the world”, “100’s of deployments”…no data, no definitions, no test of reasonableness. A bit contrary to who we are supposed to be, right?
    But then it doesn’t seem anyone wants to consider logic; we’re just hurling accolades at our idols I guess.

    0
    #179652

    Taylor
    Participant

    Bill M
    With the proper resources and staff anything is possible……………
     

    0
    #179653

    Bill M
    Participant

    BS

    0
    #179654

    Taylor
    Participant

    Interesting, For someone that is such a numbers guy. Why is it BS Bill?
     

    0
    #179655

    Bill M
    Participant

    Because you continue to ignore your error. Mike does not have unlimited resourses. Your reply has nothing to do with the issue. Just say – sorry, overspoke. Done deal.
    PS: As I did with the Dr post in the other string, I made a mistake. It happens.

    0
    #179656

    Observer Chad Vader
    Participant

    Chad,I took your advice and Googled “Mike Carnell Six Sigma”. I got back over 9,000 mentions. They seem to fall into three categories; references to isixsigma, mention of his book as second author and misc. mentions of articles and conference speeches. In fact, I ran across this short bio of Carnell in isixsigma:Mike Carnell is the President of Six Sigma Applications, a Six Sigma training and consulting company which has been in existence since 1995. This makes it one of the oldest and most experienced Six Sigma providers in existence today. He was also a founder and Co-President of Six Sigma International, and is an accomplished speaker and author.Mr. Carnell spent twelve Quality Assurance years with Motorola’s Government Electronics Group before working with Allied Signal Automotive’s Six Sigma deployment. In 1996 Gary Reiner, CIO of General Electric, was placed in charge of the General Electric Six Sigma deployment and retained Mr. Carnell to assist in the training and deployment of Six Sigma.Mr. Carnell has worked at numerous companies including Compaq Computer, Borg Warner, and Hi-Tech Manufacturing. He has launched Six Sigma deployments at Siebe (Foxborough), GenCorp, Black and Decker, Navistar, Nokia, NEC, Libby Owens Ford, and Medtronics. More recently, deployments have been launched at Sumitomo Heavy Industries, RR Donnelly, Samsung, Hyundai, Acadia Polymers, Merck, Com Data and Heller Financial.I can then surmise that Mike Carnell is an experienced, knowledgeable Six Sigma professional. I did not see anything to confirm that he is in the “top 3” by any measure nor that he has done “hundreds” of deployments. He certainly needs to be respected for his experience and knowledge but beyond that I am not sure that a statue is ready to be erected. I also did the search for “Stan Six Sigma” and got NO hits. Other than you saying that he suffers from memory loss, I don’t see any confirmation of his credentials other than frequent and cynical posts on this site.

    0
    #179657

    Taylor
    Participant

    Bill if you want me to apologize for using a synonym of  “100’s” to make my point you will be waiting for quit sometime. It is arogant of you to expect anything otherwise. Had I said 25-50, you would have said “Well which is it 25 or 50? The number is irrellevant. The point that Mike has been doing this for years, and brings and extensive amount of experience to the table is the point.
    Now do you wish to contribute to the original point of this thread or do you want to continue a pointless “word salad” about a literal number.

    0
    #179658

    Vallee
    Participant

    Man,
    I go to Canada and miss the big dog on the porch rant…. kind of reminds me of the “my dad can beat up your dad” rant.  Nobody can agree so we get into a fight instead. What if we get the bunny and have the big dogs see who can catch it and eat the pancake first.
    HF Chris
     

    0
    #179659

    Taylor
    Participant

    exactly Chris. Almost too funny to be true, but it has entertained me today/tonight.

    0
    #179664

    Bill M
    Participant

    Oh I see Chris. Now it’s clear to me how irrelevant my posts have been compared to yours. I’ll try to come up to par with you, although it will be a real hill to climb.

    0
    #179665

    Ward
    Participant

    Bill,You can get a rough idea who is who by seeing which regular posters disappear during these threads.Not that it really matters. What matters is that ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’,but the forum still persists in trying to find out who can p**s further than anyone else.Does anyone have a pension left?

    0
    #179668

    Kluttz
    Member

    As an objective observer, I can honestly say that most of your posts have been irrelevant.  As I alluded to before, once you’ve been doing this a while, you develop a pretty good eye for who knows their stuff and who is full of crap. 
    Bill, you’re full of crap.
    I know guys like you.  I had a parade of them when we were contracting out our Green Belt training.  I imagine you’d be mildly impressive to someone who didn’t know what they were talking about.  But for someone who has been around the proverbial block a few times?  They’d see you as a tool.
    So tell me, Bill – how many deployments have you led?  Tell me about some of the projects you’ve managed.  Tell me about a time that you faced a problem that couldn’t be solved with traditional Six Sigma tools.  Tell me about some of the the successes of the Black Belts you’ve mentored. 
    Or don’t.  Because I already have a pretty good idea of what your answer would be.

    0
    #179670

    Kluttz
    Member

    By the way, does anyone know the record for longest first thread? 

    0
    #179671

    Mikel
    Member

    it would be one of the 1.5 sigma rants. Look for the one with Reigle’s
    daughter and it will be close.This one’s got a way to go, but I think Bill will take it close since he
    has nothing to say and keeps saying it.

    0
    #179678

    Bill M
    Participant

    Union, I don’t see anybody else posting answers to such questions. I see everybody acting as an expert, throwing numbers around then backpedaling like Jackson’s Moon Walk – Chad – when did numbers become conceptual; I’ve always known them to be very literal?
    In 8 years I’ve managed 3 deployments; Tier 1 auto parts supplier, multi-outlet retail and a dairy. Seems they were successful since the client was pleased and two of them internalized a program at our exit. And, yes, of course, I’ve seen challenges – people who should not have been participants, resistance to change, issues to be solved via a multitude of methods – not purely DMAIC and , of course, a bucket full of people/ego/attitude problems….much like I’ve expereinced here.
    But then all this doesn’t really matter does it? See ya.

    0
    #179681

    Kluttz
    Member

    Actually, the discussion was going just fine until you got your panties in a knot.  It went downhill from there.  I’m not sure what thread you’ve been following, but I thought it started out as a great little salon on real world deployment problems.  Then you suffered some perceived slight and felt compelled to flex your Olive Oylian intellectual muscles. 
    And what does “managed” 3 deployments mean to you?

    0
    #179682

    Bill M
    Participant

    Sorry Union, I’m done here. That’s what “See ya” meant. Only responded to this for clarification. I’m getting out of the way so you’ll can keep stroking each other without anybody questioning it.

    0
    #179683

    Kluttz
    Member

    Oops, I figured the reason that you were leaving was because someone actually asked you about your experience.  I mean, it’s real easy to poopoo other people’s backgrounds and accomplishments.  It’s another thing altogether to have have your own resume dissected, isn’t it? 
    Lemme guess – when you say you “managed” 3 deployments, do you really mean that you’ve given Green Belt / Awareness training for 3 customers?  I mean, what are you really talking about here in terms of deployment?  Hoshin planning?  Training program development?  Candidate selection?  Change management strategies? 
    Any yahoo can give Green Belt training.  Heck, I’m an idiot and I’ve given Green Belt training.  But I certainly wouldn’t put that on my resume as “managing” a deployment.
    In summary – how can I miss you if you won’t go away?

    0
    #179700

    Observer
    Participant

    Chad,I couldn’t help but notice that you ignored my last response to you and instead continued your assault on Bill M. Were my comments not worthy or were you at a loss for a coherent response?

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

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