Problem with something, need help

Outlier,
It doesn’t matter what the problem is.  Just use the “7 tools”.  You’ll be fine.
Stevo

Stevo,Don’t you mean the “7-right tools”.

The key is to “count” the tools first. Without quantitative data any thinking about tools is NVA.

It is pointless to waste time discovering problems. All that does is force you to admit you have a problem, which makes you look bad.

Stevo,
They will probably one of those Georges to help with the 7 Basic Tools fits all application.
Just my opinion.

It isn’t us. You must be lacking the structure and rigor to see our wisdom. Never mind your problems. Just focus on pointing out everyone else’s problems, just highlight how their problems represent personal character weakness on their part. Feel free to refer them to us if you need them to fail even more.

I have infinite wisdom. Please contact me at 111.111.222.333 and I will tell you everything I have done. After all I only want to help myself.. I mean you…that’s it. Please don’t lump me with the other guys.

HF. You are not following protocol. You are supposed to tell everyone else they don’t know jack, then post your rate sheet. Come on, do it right.

Just because we are like you :Lazy and crazy

Considering the length of time this Forum has been in place if that was infact the protocol I would think we would have seen a “rate sheet” posted at some point. I don’t recall ever seeing one posted. Do you know where I could find that?

Trying to confuse us with the facts is not in keeping with the spirit of this site.

And maybe , Mike u got to have your eyes checked, and check the posts before u begin mouthing off again

Mike
The comment that you are referring to..to refresh your memory, which also seems in need of attention before you start questioning my subject knowledge, is
“DisagreeSeven tools are for the start up only,later you will need more advanced tools”, by Fake MBB.
My reply was
““MAY NEED…NOT WILL NEED”…most things can be dug into using the 7 Q C tools. By & large, most issues have low lying fruits which can be fixed with a bit of common sense. Six Sigma heps u bring a structured approach to it”
The key words were “May Need”. And yes, I have done a project on improving delivery times for a small firm, and we were able to fix it using the basic tools and production planning. What sort of data do you require to substantiate this?
And maybe you ought to start thinking twice b4 shooting your mouth off…
Incidentally, maybe u could also clarify as to what is so ridiculous about the answer i gave..
Take your time..I’m sure the forum is watching this conversation with active interest
George

Let me put this in points so that it seems simpler:1)Fake MBB said that Advanced tools will be required.. I Said ‘May’. I do no think that means ‘I questioned the need for anything beyond the 7 basic tools.’2)After my comment about common sense, there was also something about Six Sigma bringing a structured approach…I dont think you latched on to that. Incidentally, based on your comments I assume that you take whatever is mentioned in this Forum @ face value3)’I have done a project’ does not mean I have only worked on a single project. Backs up the statement that i had about you taking things at face value earlier4) As far as your last comment is concerned, I agree with you.
As much as I appreciate your knowledge, and I will readily admit that you have more experience than me, I too take my postings seriously, and do not make goof-ups ( @ least consciously)
Thanks for your time too, Mike
George

George,
1. May = “you might need them” as well as “you might not need them.” The 7 basic tools are inadequate as problem solving strategy for a company. There are skills necessary that are not included in the 7 basic tools so the word may doesn’t work. It also does not mean that Six Sigma is the only answer. A person can can understand tools without understanding Six Sigma but the 7 basic tools won’t do it.
2. We take people at face value because what the write is what we know about them generally. I know Darth, Stan, Stevo, BTDT, Shooter, etc. and don’t make those assumptions. The common sense choice I provided still hold true.
3. See #2
4. I take mine seriously as well. I guess that makes us both serious guys.
You are welcome.

Mike,I am sure you have good reasons for having a low regard for the 7 Tools for the high level of problem solving you are doing, and I respect that. Experiencing successes and failures over and over again tends to make us all overly sensitive to something.However, to posit that the 7Ts can NEVER be useful or sufficient is logically an extreme claim which, according to the rules of logic, shifts the burden of proof to you in this argument.The 7Ts have frequently been useful and sufficient in the vast world of CI, and the fact that these have been around so long and supported by so many accomplished professionals speaks volumes to their legitimate role in the right circumstances.In very basic CI environments any form of awareness can often be sufficient for instantly solving a problem. I have seen simple conversations accomplish this, with no data or MSA needed. I have seen cases where even the 7Ts were overkill for the situation. Unethical policies, bullying, abusive treatment of employees, or failure to communicate are prime examples of this. Any tool that contributes to problem awareness is a legitimate tool and should not be discarded just because the tool has limitations. By definition, some could argue that all tools, and even all methodologies have natural limitations.You can say the 7Ts are not useful in your work, or that you personally find them inadequate, and you would be on fair ground. But to make sweeping statements that they are completely useless and inadequate in all situations (and that anyone that has used them are morons) takes your potentially valid argument into invalid territory, IMHO.

Deanb,
 
As much as this is an exercise in futility since you are firmly ensconced in your position I will run through the logic of why teaching the 7 basic tools as a stand alone problem solving methodology is a waste of time for an organization. You are correct in that what we train people does include all 7 tools but we also do use them independently i.e. “if you think this is a really simple problem just skip everything else and just use this tool.”
 
We have found that a problem statement is extremely useful so that everybody understands what we are working on. Not in the 7 basic tools. We always agree on a Primary metric so that we can establish what the effect of the problem solving activity has accomplished (that would be the Y or the effect that the Process Owner is looking for). We also have secondary metrics so that we know we are not moving the primary metric at the expense of another metric i.e. trading off quality for throughput. We also train basic Lean and Change Management tools in Define and Measure. I can see where someone would want to skip those because we know that under the 7 basic tools and simple problems there are never any issues with Lean problems or Change Management. I am not sure about you but I know when I speak to people in an organization that has used the 7 basic tools I never find anyone who has had to solve the same problem twice (that was sarcasm for those taking things at face value). We have also found tools such as capability analysis (I am not a fan), FMEA, MSA and a cause and effect matrix are extremely useful. I don’t see any reason to go back over MSA. Capability studies don’t turn up solutions but they do seem get some to understand the degree to which a problem exists. FMEA is a great tool for making sure you have addressed all the issues i.e. so that people don’t over look potential causes so we don’t have to solve anything twice. I is also a great tool for synthesizing all the initial information a person needs to assemble to solve a problem and set a priority in dealing with the x’s using the rpn. It is also a very nice contingency planning tool. I have forgotten the basic stats we teach. That is probably not a big deal. I am sure that control charts are so intuitive that there would be any need to understand basic stats to use that tool.
 
The 7 basic tools completely pass over anything we teach in Analyze and Improve. Since basic problem solving never has to deal with the comparison of anything such as two or more suppliers, two or more methodologies, two or more shifts, etc I can see where if it is a simple problem we would be able to skip understanding a distribution, a variance or a mean so we definitely don’t need any form of hypothesis testing (sarcasm again for those reading at face value). There is need for any other form of charting so we can skip the tools such as dot plots, box plots and Multi-vari studies particularly since they are so technical oriented. Maybe someday someone will invent a software that will do all of this so that we don’t have to restrict people to 7 basic tools and they can print out all these different types of charts as easily as they do the Pareto charts, histograms, scatter plots and run charts used as a part of the 7 basic tools. Since the use of the 7 basic tools assumes the intuitive understanding of stats so that people can use control charts that same intuitive understanding works for the hypothesis testing.
 
Speaking of scatter plots maybe when we get that software we can teach them something like Correlation or Regression so that instead of guessing at the strength of a relationship they can actually make a decision based on a statistical test. I can see where there is such a huge leap from a scatter plot to correlation and regression that we don’t want to confuse anyone. Since problems are simple I can see were there is no use for a r square value so that you can tell what portion of the problem you are dealing with? Maybe that same intuitive stats understanding from the control charts would work here as well.
 
DOE I will concede. How often do we legitimately need it? Not that often. I may be missing something here though. What tool was it that used in the 7 basic tools that allows you to understand interactions? Of course these are simple problems so there won’t be any interactions.
 
Control. We do spend quite a bit of time on control charts. Since we have chosen to only use the 7 basic tools we can skip those higher level tools such as control plans and Poke Yoke. Very complex. Why would we need those except on technical problems.
 
We can go into the logic of making sure we understand financial results so that when leadership teams understand the financial impact of what you are doing they understand your contribution to the organization and you gain credibility. Who needs that. There certainly has never been a post that discussed management support.
 
We have been spoon fed this KISS (keep it simple stupid) attitude all our lives and then we wonder why our processes (not just the technical ones) are so completely screwed up. We make excuses for not taking the time to do it right (so we only have to do it once?) and then we write it off to the fact that it wasn’t a complicated problem. I tend to subscribe to “for every simple solution there is an unsolved problem.”
 
Lets just think about it – logically. Since I consult in Six Sigma would it make any sense for me to ever write a contract with a customer that said I am going to do a Six Sigma deployment with you if I believed that most of this could be solved with 7 basic tools? If my real belief was that it were true I would write a contract that said we will teach the 7 basic tools and then based on assessing your problems we would be glad to discuss teaching you a higher level of tools because you “may” need them. Even if I were to write a contract that said we will teach you the 7 basic tools and then you may need Six Sigma, in todays market most customers would say “don’t we need Lean as well? If the 7 basic tools will solve most problems why are people being sold so much Lean?” There is that tired old crap of Six Sigma isn’t the silver bullet. No shit. Neither is Lean and neither is TOC and neither is the 7 basic tools and neither is SAP and neither is MRP and neither is any other program you can name.
 
The rigor and discipline of defining a problem, baselineing a problem and institutionalizing a problem do not go away because it is a simple problem. The first assumption is that you can look at something and determine that it is simple. That may or may not be true because it is only based on your current knowledge. We have already seen a ton of people who have created a huge problem for themselves trying to figure out if something is a Lean or Six Sigma project and we are going to enhance their lives by adding something extra for simple problems.
 
The rigor and discipline of problem solving do not go away because a problem is deemed to be simple. We are better off teaching them that they need steps such as defining a problem, baselineing a problem, analyzing a problem and institutionalizing a solution. Those are steps that never go away and they do not have only Six Sigma as a solution. When you throw a set of tools at them and tell them this will cover it you invite the rework of doing again and the eventual death of the program because of its lack of efficiency and sustainability.
 
7 basic tools made sense to some degree in its day. With the software packages such as Minitab there is no reason to truncate what we teach people unless we believe that they are not smart enough to deal with it. At this point I have not found that to be true.
 
Just my opinion.
 
Stevo – yeah this is a long answer but this discussion is beyond tedious.

Mike,You seem to be arguing that the 7 Basic Tools should not be used as “a stand alone methodology.” Guess what: I agree.I also agree that modern approaches using Minitab are faster and slicker enablers than the 7Ts which used to be done with pencil and paper. For that matter, any tool is only as good as the management scheme it serves. So that applies to the entire SS tool kit. No tool solves any problem by itself. Back to the original argument. I cannot find in the recent threads anyone who has claimed the 7Ts are to be used as a “stand alone methodology.” Can you find one?You may be making a Strawman Argument with no true opponent.

Mike, George, (ironic, huh?)
The opportunity to play voyeur to your spat has made for an enriching weekend.  But the fight seems a little bit like Mohammed Ali (Carnell) versus Sylvester Stallone (George).   
What baffles me is why George got into the ring in the first place and then remained there!  Overpowered in experience, intellect, and rhetorical skill, George’s shallow pretense of Six Sigma knowledge were painfully apparent.  But you keep using those 7 tools, Georgie!
And the real prize here was when George revealed his true identity as if that gave credence to anything he had written.  The reality is it only undermines anything that has his name attached to it.  Thanks, George, for confirming my suspicions about your books since I have only had time (and inclination) to scan the tables of contents to this point.
Carnell, after reading your posts I doubt I will ever use a Pareto chart again.  Thanks for setting me straight.
Bede

Yes, George, you do have a point.  And if you wear a hat maybe…MAYbe….nobody will notice.
EH 

Stan,
I was wondering if you were going to log in on this one.
Regards

Stan,
Did you have to sign a nondisclosure befor the talk?
Regards