iSixSigma

originator of six sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General originator of six sigma

Viewing 63 posts - 1 through 63 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51337

    Himanshu Choudhary
    Participant

    Please tell me who is the originator of six sigma, who are the top CEO’s who introduced this method   

    0
    #177746

    anon
    Participant

    Stan, just ask him.

    0
    #177750

    Skovron
    Member

    The link below provides a lot of information, probably more than you want, but it gives a pretty good history.
    http://www.businessballs.com/sixsigma.htm

    0
    #177753

    Old MBB
    Participant

    Bob Galvin at Motorola was the original Champion and Dr. Mikel Harry (also at Moto) was the “inventor” of MAIC and was the creator of the term “Six Sigma” (including publishing the 1.5 sigma shift).  Jack Welch at GE was the CEO that drove it to the next level as a religion…

    0
    #177756

    Mikel
    Member

    Correct. You get an A for today.Just a couple of clarifications -Old’s attributing the name Six Sigma and the 1.5 shift to Mikel Harry
    is incorrect – that would be Bill Smith.And the link provided by the other poster didn’t even know how to
    spell Mikel’s name and got AlliedSignal doing Six Sigma 3 years
    before they actually did.

    0
    #177757

    OLDBS
    Participant

    Not quite true!Dr. Harry did not invent DMAIC or MAIC.Dr. Harry did not invent the term Six Sigma – if he did why does the Six Sigma metric really 4.5 sigma? You can’t have it both ways!!!!Dr. Harry invented the terms ‘blackbelt,’ and ‘greenbelt.’Dr. Harry championed DFM at Motorola – to his great credit.Dr. Harry turned SS into a ‘religion’ – an unquestionable faith.

    0
    #177779

    Old MBB
    Participant

    If you want to know more about the history of your “why does the Six Sigma metric really 4.5 sigma?” question, get a copy of “Six Sigma Mechanical Design Tolerancing” (Harry, 1988) you will find an explaination of the 1.5 Sigma shift (the adjustment between 4.5 Sigma single-sided, long-term data, including attribute data, and 6 Sigma short-term).  In this paper Harry also cites “Statistical Tolerancing as it Relates to Quality Control and the Designer” (Bender, 1975), “Statistical Tolerancing: The State of the Art, Part III: Shifts and Drifts” (Evans, 1975), and “A New Approach to Engineering Tolerances” (Gibson, 1951) as support…

    0
    #177781

    Mikel
    Member

    All of your citations are just hand waving and Mikel has since backed
    off from the position.Any rational process control can give you much less than the
    infamous 1.5 shift.The only thing useful about the whole discussion is the knowledge
    that variation over the long term will degrade from what is seen in
    snapshots like material and process qualifications. But to use the 1.5
    for anything more than that is just a superstitious dance.

    0
    #177783

    OLDBS
    Participant

    You’ve missed the point. Why call it 6 sigma when the “standard” is 4.5 sigma?My point was it is called 6 sigma because of Bill Smith’s interest in setting designer tolerances to +/- 6 sigma, which gives a metric equivalent to Cp = 2.His interest in this came from his work as a product engineer when he and others discovered Lots with reworks yielded less than Lots that went straight through the factory without any problems.

    0
    #177785

    GB
    Participant

    Well said Stan.

    0
    #177791

    Taylor
    Participant

    It is called Six Sigma because the goal is to acheive perfection. Not a Standard

    0
    #177793

    RC
    Participant

    That is, if perfection is defined at 99.9996600 % Conformance or 3.4 Defects per million opportunities. You can of course reach closer to perfection (100% conformance 100% of the time) with a larger sigma value. However, this effort is certainly limited by the Law of Diminishing Returns.

    0
    #177795

    Mikel
    Member

    So you know that the law of diminishing returns kicks in at 3.4
    defects per million?

    0
    #177799

    RC
    Participant

    As Socrates famously said “I know nothing.” :) I wouldn’t say that it necessarily “kicks in” at this point, rather, 6 sigma seemingly lies at the highest threshold of attainable improvement for moderate investment of effort.

    0
    #177801

    Mikel
    Member

    And what makes you think that is true?

    0
    #177802

    Nolan
    Participant

    Depends entirely upon the process – some yes, some no.

    0
    #177803

    Mikel
    Member

    Give me an example where you know the answer is yes.

    0
    #177804

    W. R. M.
    Member

    At Motorola in the late 80’s, the usual practice was to set tolerances for various product characteristics at the same level as process control limits, that is, with a process capability index of 1.0. However, this gave processes no “elbow room”. Points outside control limits would result in defects.
    Bill Smith, a Motorola engineer, suggested that where processes were not controlled, “batch-to-batch variation could be as much as +/-1.5 sigma off target”. Smith pulled the 1.5 value out of the air with no justification. In reality, where processes are uncontrolled, there is no limit to how far things can go wrong. “Batch-to-batch variation” might be 3, 5, or 7 sigma or whatever, off target. Nevertheless, Bill’s figure of 1.5 was to become the core of six sigma today.
    It is curious that Bill Smith should have selected such an odd number as 1.5. We may never know his real reason. However at that time, Motorola made extensive use of Shainin Pre Control Charts, as well as Shewhart Charts. Pre Control charts define three “bands”, green, yellow and red. The green band is defined as 50% of the specification limits around the target, the yellow band is between the green band and the specification limits, and the red band is outside these limits. When a process moves into red or yellow bands, the methodology prescribes a set of corrective actions. If the process mean drifts in the green band, no action is necessary. (It has been shown that such procedures actually increase process variation). Because Motorola used a Cp=1 at the time, the green band was equivalent to +/-1.5 sigma off target. The mean was allowed to drift in this band. It has been suggested that Bill Smith confused Pre Control Chart’s +/-1.5 sigma drifting mean with control charts.
    From about 1987 Motorola changed design tolerances to +/-6 sigma. That is, it changed from the previous Cp=1, to Cp=2, in order to reduce defects. It appears that this change was at Bill Smith’s suggestion. Smith states: “Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width. This influences the quality of product as much as the control of process variation does”. In other words, to reduce defects, simply change the specification ! This is perhaps the most fundamental flaw in Six Sigma. Six Sigma Quality does not relate to how well a process is performing. Instead, six sigma quality simply reflects where specification limits have been set.
    Bill Smith makes another major error. He introduces numbers relating to normal distributions and without any justification, intimates that they apply to all processes. If he had read Shewhart’s work from 60 years previously, he would have realised that we can never know the exact form of any data distribution, nor do we need to. Dr D Wheeler has shown that even with 3200 data points, we can not be sure what the form of distribution for a population is beyond +/-2.95 sigma. In other words, there is no justification for assuming that any particular data set is normally distributed. Many data sets such as from time based processes, common in service industries, will be very skewed. Six sigma’s assumptions of normality do not apply.
    Sigma is a measure of data dispersion, that is the spread of data. Bill Smith used sigma values to give defect levels for normal distributions. The common practise of using defect counts to estimate sigma levels is nonsensical. It is analogous to trying to estimate the shape of a dog by looking at the extreme tip of its tail. For example, it is impractical to collect sufficient data to distinguish whether any data set is a better fit to a Burr or normal distribution. However, at six sigma, an incorrect choice gives a 15,000% error.
    After Bill Smith pulled 1.5 sigma out of his hat, Mikel Harry attempted to justify it theoretically, as discussed in “Sick Sigma”. Harry based his justification on work by Bender and Evans who looked at tolerances in the thickness of stacks of disks. Of course, stacks of disks bear no relation whatsoever to typical processes. Harry later suggested “We employed the value of 1.5 since no other empirical information was available at the time of reporting” and later “the 1.5 constant would not be needed as an approximation”.
    Mikel Harry also introduced his “Z shift” equation. This equation is derived from the sums of squares equality where for a groups of data points :
    Overall variation = Variation between groups + variation within groups
    Or SSoverall = SSbetween + SSwithin , where “SS” represents sums of squares.
    Unlike control charts, to which Harry refers, this equation dispenses with time. That is, the sequence of data sets is irrelevant to the above equality. Despite this, Harry renames the SSwithin figure “short term” and the SSoverall figure “long term”. To add further to his error, both these figures use exactly the same data ! In other words, in this context there is no “short term” nor “long term”. If that wasn’t enough, Harry bases his equation on 6 sets of 5 data points. For 30 minute sampling, this represents just 2.5 hours. Hence both his short term and long term are just 2.5 hours!
    Mikel Harry’s erroneous derivation of the 1.5 made another change to Bill Smith’s claims. Instead of the +/-1.5 applying to uncontrolled processes as Bill Smith suggested, Harry does not make this distinction. The nonsensical 1.5 becomes universal for all processes!
    By the 21st century, Six Sigma is in full swing. Its appeal to management is its ability to reduce defects to a claimed level of 3.4 dpmo. Dpmo stands for defects per million opportunities, with the term “opportunity” itself being rather nebulous. 3.4 dpmo is based on the assumption that all processes have normally distributed data and that all processes experience a “long term” “drift” or “shift” of +/-1.5 sigma. Some take this even further and make the outlandish claim that “all processes are out of control 13-14%” of the time because of this “shift”. However with the old version of 1.5 starting to be challenged, a new theory was needed to support Six Sigma. In around 2003, Mikel Harry obliges.
    Harry’s new theory is based on the fact that the standard deviation for any set of variable data has an error in it’s ability to estimate sigma for a population. With a very large data set, the standard deviation will be a good estimate of sigma for the population. Conversely a small data set will not give an accurate estimate. We can estimate the error in the estimate of sigma, using a Chi Square test. Depending on the number of samples and the probability that the standard deviation is an accurate estimate of sigma, we find various values.
    For example, if we take a sample of 100 points, we can be 99% sure that the estimate of sigma is less than +1.2 * SD or 90% sure it is less than +1.1 * SD … where “SD” is the standard deviation.
    Harry takes a special case of 30 points and a 99% confidence interval, to give:

    0.744 * SD < sigma < 1.487 * SD.
    Harry then ignores the left hand side of the; multiplies by 3 (for 3 sigma control limits) ; subtracts 3 and gets a +/-1.5 “correction” to control limits. The left hand side of the equation is ignored because it would have given a value of “-0.77” instead of the required “-1.5”.
    By taking different values, the “correction” can be anything from 0.0 to over +/-50 (2 points, 99% confidence). Fortunately we don’t need to make such “corrections” to control limits. As Shewhart pointed out, control limits do not depend on probability. Control limits are economic limits and are always exactly 3.0
    Harry’s partner Reigle Stewart has added yet another calculation he calls a “dynamic mean off-set” as:3 / sqrt( n )
    where 3 is the value for control limits and n is the subgroup size. For n=4 he gets “1.5”. Reigle says “This means that the classic Xbar chart can only detect a 1.5 sigma shift (or larger) in the process mean when subgroup size is 4”. Reigle is quite incorrect. Such data is readily available from ARL (Average Run Length) plots.
    In summary, the 1.5 does not exist, despite the many attempts to prop it up. Calculations involving 1.5 are hence meaningless. That is, 3.4 dpmo is meaningless. Six sigma tables are meaningless. Sigma levels are meaningless. These measures should never be used.Finally it should be observed that Six sigma’s 3.4 defects per million is similar to Phil Crosby’s “Zero defects”. Both are based on a suggestion that product is “good” if it is inside specification limits and “bad” if it is outside specifications. Costs related to processes are more important than just defects. Costs are not a step function, where costs are “low” when product is in specification and “high” when product is out of specification. Taguchi proposed that costs vary in some continuous way in relation to product characteristic, as described by his “Loss Function”. The result of Taguchi’s analysis can be shown to be that good quality means “on target with minimum variance”.
    Forget about 3.4 dpmo. The correct approach is to manage processes well and defects will take care of themselves.

    0
    #177812

    Aardvark
    Participant

    The law of diminishing returns was a concept invented by economists… Ricardo comes to mind (was it David or Ricky???)  Reading Stan’s responses I believe he has his doubts.  And why not?  Economists are presently running for cover or crying for mommie… or both.
    There appears to be a similarity with this concept and the fact that in some instances going from a very good process to a damn good one takes effort that people and management will not be willing to pay.
    The alternative is to believe that there is a linear (or maybe quadratic) relationship of process vs. outcome (for the majority of processes), and that;s all there is to it.
    I think it depends on the situation.
    here’s some wiki
    Diminishing returns says that the marginal physical product of an input will fall with increasing investment of other inputs, as the system involved approaches perfection, market saturation or natural environment limits of one or another kind. It’s one of the key ideas behind the subject of learning curve and experience curve effects.

    0
    #177852

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    RC,
    I would be willing to bet money that neither you nor anyone else can show any universal relationship between sigma level and cost of improvement. It is pretty much a first cousin concept to a universal i.5 sigma shift.
    When you start a project you should do some sort of financial analysis that determines a cost benefit ratio. Not all projects should be determined completely by that number i.e. safety projects. This is business. If you make any business decision you need to understand cost and benefit independent of some sigma level. If you look at industries such as memory devices or processors I am sure there are significant advantages at taking a product to market that is less than 3 sigma but when you consider the number of devices on a wafer and the value of each device improvement is pretty easy to cost justify.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #177853

    RC
    Participant

    Of course there is no “universal” correlation between sigma level and cost of improvement, the relationship varies from application to application. In one case a company for whatever particular thing they are trying to control might see nixing out a few more defects to be too costly and wouldn’t continue. What I meant by being constrained by the Law of diminishing returns is that in that objective environment, couldn’t the increase in a sigma value be seen as producing less and less of a reduction in DPMO?

    0
    #177855

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    RC,
    The data I have says that it gets really slow above 5.0 – 5.2 and typically involves design. The nice part about continuous improvement is that it is like walking up the side of a mountain (or better yet driving). When you are at the bottom you are typically in a world that is constrained by objects that are close. The higher you go the better your view and it covers more space.
    When you start doing this stuff seriously each project opens new opportunities with options you frequently couldn’t visualize before you started. You can choose to pontificate about the end or you can start moving and see what happens. I am always betting on the person that just starts moving.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #177859

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    RC,
    I have a great idea. In January the is a conference called iSixSigma Live in Miami. We are having a panel discussion down there. Come down and do the question there. I spoke to a person earlier that has a paper by Juran that addresses this issue so maybe we can get some discussion going around this.
     

    0
    #177862

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    I thought there is an article in isixsigma.com already put the final nail for this issue on who is the originator for Six Sigma.
    Bill Smith is definitely the one who created Six Sigma concept.
    I strongly suggested those naive about the history of Six Sigma to read chapter one in this book, “The New Six Sigma” by Matt Barney and Tom McCarty, Motorola University.
     

    0
    #177863

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Mikel Harry did not create the name of Black Belt actually, the BB name was mooted by engineers from a Motorola plant in Malaysia.

    0
    #177868

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    That is interesting. How do you know that?

    0
    #177870

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    In page 6 of this book, “The New Six Sigma” mentioned a bit about BB naming which credited Black Belt is a concept that originated with Motorola’s statistical experts in Asia.Personally I know a number of ex-Motorola engineers and managers from Malaysia plants, they are true pioneers in Six Sigma implementation since mid 80s. I was trained in Six Sigma, manufacturing short cycle time, Honshin, TPM, SPC, Color Chart, etc. as early as 90s by this Motorola pioneer team. Mikel Harry himself did visit Malaysia Motorola plants in late 80s and early 90s.

    0
    #177871

    Severino
    Participant

    When in doubt… let Wheeler help you out.  Here’s what he has to say on the subject:
    http://www.spcpress.com/pdf/The_Final_6_Sigma_Zone.pdf

    0
    #177873

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    It would be interesting to get Mario Perez-Wilson’s input on this. He spent a lot of time delivering the original traing and projects for Motorola SPS back in the late 1980’s. He was just visiting.
    This is new version for me and I was around Motorola since 1983.

    0
    #177874

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Yes, Mario was instructor at that time.Mikel Harry patented “Black Belt” does not mean his is the one mooted the idea first.

    0
    #177875

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Forget to mention, that Six Sigma pioneer team members are very successful in their career ladder. A few of them are holding president or vice president positions with US MNC operations in Asia like Dell, Plexus, etc.

    0
    #177876

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    It would seem that if Mario was the instructor there must have been some pre-pioneering work done. If my memory serves me correctly Gary Cone and I  read an advanced copy of Mario’s book Machine Process Capability while he was still at Motorola Government Electronics. Just maybe Marios book Six Sigma was written around the work that was done on the FMU-139 and FZU-48 program and I think that was before his work in Malaysia. Just a thought but to give all the credit to a group in Malaysia is pretty disrespectful to all the work that Mario did.
    I think you will find that the process as we know it today was the effort of a lot of people in a lot of locations.
    I am guessing here but I think the term “Black Belt” was trademarked not patented. Either way the process to get that demands proof of origination. There is a website for that maybe the documentation is available?
    The more interesting part is that Motorola credits Bill Smith. There are several books that cite that.
    Just my opinion

    0
    #177877

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    There is a correction to this post.
    I reads: “He was just visiting.”
    S/B: “He wasn’t just visiting.”

    0
    #177884

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    The early days of Six Sigma journey in Motorola is not properly documented.Ex-Motorola MD, an American did write a paper about the six sigma journey in Malaysia before he retired in early 90s. He also credited Bill Smith for Six Sigma program.Malaysia Motorola plants were doing all kinds of process improvements prior to Six Sigma program started in 1987. There was no documentation on how and who created “Black Belt” concept except a little compliment given in this book “The New Six Sigma” published by Motorola University.Mario is a right person to speak out on original of Black Belt.

    0
    #177886

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Correction: Roger Benelson was GM, not MD when he published the paper.Motorola began its operations in Malaysia in 1972, 15 years earlier than Six Sigma program officialy kicked in. Its Seremban semiconductor plant was built in 1979.

    0
    #177891

    RC
    Participant

    Good point, Mike.  Like a shark, if you stop swimming, you’ll drown.  I also like to keep in mind that with a business perspective it’s not always necessary to acheive a perfect process performance but simply to acheive a process performance better than that of your competitors.

    0
    #177897

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    The answer is of course.What really irritates people like me and Mike is too many business
    people are ready to whip out things like “diminishing returns” or the
    old discussion killer “this is a business decision” as an excuse to do
    nothing.I have never seen a business where there is not an opportunity for
    improvement, you just need to know where the risks are and focus
    your projects there.

    0
    #177898

    RC
    Participant

    Exactly.
    What I’m proposing is that isn’t there a point where the “risk” is spending too many resources on a project to increase process performance to produce a yield that is significantly lower than a yield that would be produced if the same resources were directed at a process that is at a lower sigma level?
    I’m saying that wouldn’t opportunity for greater improvement be realized if you shift your “focus” to more “low hanging fruit” or a poorer performing process, say 1.5 sigma to 2.5 sigma target, rather than trying to get from, for example, 5 sigma to 6 sigma target or whatever we deem the threshold to be for LoDR (law of diminishing returns) on one process?  Only when you have most of your “low hanging fruit” picked should you go for the top of the tree.
    So I hope that my tone isn’t perceived as trying to avoid going for higher performance, rather, going for the most accessible opportunities first (identified in Define phases of proposed projects) and then using this as a staging platform to escalate performance across the board.

    0
    #177902

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    Does do you mean to say that only Malaysia was doing process improvement before Six Six?

    0
    #177924

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Do you have any document to say Black Belt concept was mooted in your former plant or else where?I did not say definitely that BB was mooted in Malaysia, the only reference I used is a book published by Motorola University.KLM was running at 4.5 sigma level before Six Sigma kicked off. There was 10X improvement project since earlier 80s. The logic is there maybe someone was using Black Belt term which was borrrowed by SSRI later.

    0
    #177925

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Add another point here, whether BB was coined in Malaysia or elsewhere is not my concern. My earlier post is to rebut Mikel Harry is originator for Black Belt.

    0
    #177927

    Ron
    Member

    While the roots of six sigma were derived from Motorola it was michael Harry who sold it to Larry Bossidy at Allied Signal. Allied Signal perfected six sigma and based on the successful results Bossidy sold to to his good friend Jack Welch who marketed it to Wall Street via GE.
    So six sigma has many deriviations but the path to notariety came from its succesful application at Allied Signal and GE.
     
     

    0
    #177928

    Anonymous
    Guest

    I joined Motorola’s MOS 3 in 1984 and in all that time I never heard the term ‘blackbelt’ up until I left in 1990. Furthermore, I saw Dr. Harry once when he ran an excellent class on DTM using a children’s game.I only saw Schroeder once – when he gave his ‘Five Snakes to Kill speech.’By that time we’d already achieved Cpk = 2 on channel length because we’d worked closely with Japanese engineers. Bill Walker of MOS 2 had a long relationship with Hitachi before they fell out with us.The only martial art term I heard was reference to Shainin’s techniques as karta.Don’t let the bedbugs bite ..Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #177931

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Andy, a close friend was an Engineer in Penang Hitachi Semicon in 90s. He heard nothing about SPC, DOE, Six Sigma, lean etc. in the plant. Antway Hitachi is still a survivor till today.My ex-company, ST Microelectronics bypassing semi-manual processes and jumped info fully automation lines with huge capital investment since late 80s.Time is proven STM’s automation strategy is correct.

    0
    #177932

    Sammy
    Member

    ‘Blackbelt’ came in later as a technique to market the rubbish Harry had concoted.

    0
    #177933

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Nk,I can’t imagine a better site for a facility than Penang .. strawberries for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!!!BTW I never found anywhere I could buy raw silk shirts over the internet.Cheers,
    Andy

    0
    #177934

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Hitachi is still upholding no-fire policy like old Motorola under Bob Galvin.How about your retirement days?

    0
    #177936

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Harry seems is not “likable” by many posters. :-)

    0
    #177938

    Taylor
    Participant

    You guys really need to get a hobby. Its spilt milk, water under the bridge, some cases over the bridge, but either way who cares who coined a phrase, or came up with belts, or some jap word no one can say. Fact is it works when applied correctly all over the world. But that history, OLD Data as they say. Now go do something.
    Chad Vader Thought of the Day: ” What we see when watching others, depends on the purity of the window through which  we look.”

    0
    #177939

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    This was your first post.
    “Mikel Harry did not create the name of Black Belt actually, the BB name was mooted by engineers from a Motorola plant in Malaysia.”
    I really could care less who named what. What does bother me is when someone takes credit for something they did not do. Lots of people worked quality a lot of different ways before the name of Six Sigma began to be used. John Lupienski at Motorola Elma, New York was doing quality improvement work easily two decades before Six Sigma began. John played a big part in the creation of Six Sigma as we know it today. He does not claim to be the originator and you really have to pry it out him for what he did do. Malaysia did not create this any more than one location or one person did. It was a lot of people doing a lot of different things.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #177943

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    MU credicted someone like Bill Smith to Six Sigma concept does not mean he is only one contributed to Six Sigma development.In the same token, I said BB name was mooted by enginners in Malaysia (from Asia) which I have crossed reference to MU.I care less on who wanted to claim as contributors to quality improvement journey, because I only dispute who is the originator for BB name.If you would like to use historical reference on who are contributed to process improvement, I would say we go track back to people in stone age or much earlier.

    I’m ready confuse on your side tracking argument on who is contributing to Six Sigma journey.Insofar I have no seeing any evidence from you to rebut BB name was not created in Asia.

    0
    #177949

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    Black belt is a common name for master or teacher used in Asian martial arts like Karate Do and Taekwon Do after the world world II.Asian engineers picked up “Black Belt” to label project leader is not something unusual.What is the fuss IF MU wanted to credit BB naming to someone who deserve for the credit?

    0
    #177950

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    I am not sure why you think I want to rebut the BB name. That seems to be some conclusion you have jumped to. I asked some questions because I wanted to know why you believe what you did. That doesn’t mean I agree or disagree. You seem to be a little sensitive for someone who truely believes they are right.
    I would appreciate it if you would show me where I said it was done by just Bill Smith. I do believe I introduced Mario’s contribution to this string which you agreed he trained the original pioneers which is a bit of a paradox in itself.
    I do have a problem with your position that Six Sigma came from Malaysia. Lots of people contributed to it in its current state which was not your original position. Was there quality improvement activity there? Of course. There was quality improvement activity in a lot of places. Does that mean they all originated Six Sigma? Of course not.
    The concept of a breakthrough strategy was documented in Juran’s book “Managerial Breakthrough” that he wrote in 1964. Does that mean he invented Six Sigma? No. Was the material in that book critical to building a thought process i.e. distinguishing between breakthrough and control. Absolutely.
    You won’t find much as far as quality, in terms of the way we speak of it today until you get past a point that requires interchangable parts. This is just a guess but I don’t think that was a big issue in the stone age.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #177951

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    Thanks for the clarification on the use of Black Belt in relation to martial arts. It was very helpful since it is such a little known fact.
    At this point you seem to be the only one in a fuss because I asked some questions. Maybe you need a little less caffeine.

    0
    #177952

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    I have not claimed that six sigma was originated from Malaysia, except to say someone already used “Black Belt” name prior to Harry popularized the term. KLM is a pioneer in Six Sigma implementation is a fact. I hope you can understand “implemetation
    is not equal to “creation”.You have problem to comprehead simple subject when someone credited a person or a group of people for a certain original idea. No doubt Mario contributed a lot to Six Sigma journey but did he fisrt mooting Six Sigma concept to Bob Galvin.Your arrogant and name calling habits contributed nothing to Six Sigma except your defective ego.

    0
    #177953

    NKKhoo
    Participant

    You shall enlighten forum readers who are the contributors to Six Sigma journey which is not related to BB naming discussion.Personally I have no problem to accept your hall of fame listing which may including yourself.

    0
    #177954

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    What name calling?
     

    0
    #177956

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    nkkhoo,
    You actually have not restricted your post to the creation of the term Black Belt. You posted:
    “Personally I know a number of ex-Motorola engineers and managers from Malaysia plants, they are true pioneers in Six Sigma implementation since mid 80s.”
    Pioneer would be defined as:
    A person who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory to settle.
    So what did you intend with the term “true pioneers?” At this point there is a fair amount of territory between 5 and 6 sigma that still qualifies ans unknown and unclaimed territory.

    0
    #177958

    Severino
    Participant

    The problem with your thought process though is that it assumes that the resources working to get a well behaved process to perform even better are the same resources that are necessary to deal with the low hanging fruit.  In some cases this will be true, in others it will not. 
     

    0
    #177980

    Mikel
    Member

    What about Bill Smith?

    0
    #177981

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Just a slight clarification, page 6 credits the concepts and standards adopted by Skip Weed to the folks in Asia. It says absolutely nothing about the name “black belt”.
    Do a little more research and you will find that the idea of a roadmap was proposed years earlier among some of the leaders in SABA. Several people ran with that idea including John Lupienski, Mario Perez-Wilson, myself and I am sure folks in Malaysia.
    I represented AIAG at the first TCS competition and the teamwork and results on display from Malaysia were tremendous. The use of DOE from Codex was also tremendous. Teams from AIAG in Texas and New York were also quite good with a blend of teamwork and statistical tools.
    The point here is no one had a corner on this market. The tools have been taught for years. The roadmap has been documented at least since 1964.
    A bigger point in my mind is how screwed up many, many businesses still are after all these years. New financial instruments, bailouts, blaming liberals/unions/unfair competition, …
    It’s all nonsense and who came up with black belt is low in importance.

    0
    #177985

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I remember that team from Texas. I actually saw a picture of us about a year ago and the guy running the the plastics factory was on the team as well. He thinks it all came from Parker Hanifin.
    Regards

    0
    #178090

    GomezAdams
    Participant

    Close….
    I believe it was Heime’ Schwartzkoff.

    0
Viewing 63 posts - 1 through 63 (of 63 total)

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