iSixSigma

Publication Error

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Publication Error

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45163

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Andy:
    I read through your Metrology white paper you wrote years ago.  Something strange here.  You’re paper says Motorola started six sigma in 1988.  But my research shows it was acutally a couple of years before that. From what I can see, Motorola won the MB award is 1988 and started six sigma much earlier. 
    Now why would an “expert” like yourself confuse the official starting year of six sigma, especially when you were a part of some Motorola committee on six sigma? 
    I guess the truth is out there (on the internet).  Maybe you should take the time to research yourself.  When you do, you’ll see why you look like a fraud.  Maybe your heart is big, but not your reputation (or your dates).
    Why don’t you and your other “experts” get some of the well recognized names to post here.  Surely you have the clout to do that, being an expert and all.

    0
    #146592

    BB
    Participant

    You are wrong.
    Motorola won the Baldridge award using TQM, or at least their version of TQM.  Six sigma was a name change and a marketing exercise. 
    Mikel Harry fluffed it out with a whole lot of rubbish.  Reigle added his verbal spew.  The Instituite put a ridiculous price on it.  And a whole lot of dummies like you bought the snake oil  !

    0
    #146596

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Here is the smoking gun quote from Andy Urquhart’s paper on metrology:
     
    “We felt it was important to include information about the ISOPLOT because its use predates the official date of Six Sigma in 1988.” 
     
    You can verify this quote at http://www.onesixsigma.com/node/622.  
     
    I also found a copy of a Motorola document dated January 15, 1987 that states: “Achieve SIX SIGMA CAPABILITY by 1992.” 
     
    Now, if Andy Urquhart was really a six sigma expert of many years and also a six sigma leader at Motorola, how could he believe the official date of six sigma was 1988 (and falsely publish it as being so), which coincidently is the year Motorola won the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award?  Seems the facts are clear, but his words are verifiably wrong. 
     
    Our self appointed expert Mr. Andy Urquhart is another one of those consultants (now apparently out of business) trying to make loose connections to six sigma and falsely make it seem like something else.  Hooray to six sigma, a fact driven method (and the internet).  Today the facts have trapped yet another pretender.  But what about the other so-called experts on this site.  Let’s see if we can flush these birds out of the bushes.
     
    Hey you guys that just jumped my bones (Stan, Sam, BB).  Please provide your names so I can run a background check and make known your internet search results.
     
    Andy was quick to respond until I posted the facts about him, but it now seems the cat is suddenly quite.  Hey Andy, what about your white paper quote?  Got anything to say?  The guilty usually don’t, so lets see you squeeze your way out of this one.  How does it feel where the hunter becomes the hunted?  Maybe if you start being a little nicer, this sort of thing would not go so public.
     
    Come on Stan, Sam and BB, I’m now waiting for you.  I’m just a nobody in this world, so it should be pretty easy to beat up on me.  I’m just one of those that asked a simple question some time ago and really got hammered.  So lets see if you have the courage to give us your name so we can check you out.  How about it BB?  Everyone knows you won’t dare expose your name.  We also know why.
     
    Now what are you blow hards going to do?  I’ll bet you make some disturbing statements so the moderator shuts this thread down and allow you to avoid being called on the carpet?  I really don’t want to hurt your feelings, just expose you goof balls.  So help me out and give me your names.

    0
    #146597

    mand
    Member

    You do seem very upset !
    I hope it wasn’t me when I said:  “If you are so brave, who are you ?  Let’s all tear apart your personal history.  Ever been unfaithful ? Ever dressed in women’s clothes perhaps ?”
    Maybe you do dress in womens’ clothes ?  I hope you don’t steal them from clothes lines ?

    0
    #146598

    Bash Me Too
    Participant

    Sam:
    Thanks, you just confirmed your deceptive nature.  It’s really simple, just give us your name so we can check you out and post the facts.  If you are worth your salt, you should be proud to have your background put out for all to examine.
    By the way, I do wear girls clothes and lipstick.  No, I won’t tear apart anyone’s history, but I will post the factual nature of their history.  So let us begin this journey with you Stan and BB.  After this, we’ll move on to some of the other experts.
    But we all know you won’t provide your name.  Nobody wants to be made a fool.  You know, like you and others have harmed good, well intentioned people that come to this site looking for some direction and help.  I say “enough is enough” and its time you got a little of your own medicine, starting with Andy.

    0
    #146599

    mand
    Member

    So that makes you a “cross dresser” !
    You know, cross=angry  – ha ha ha ha ha ha

    0
    #146603

    Ang
    Participant

    I’m afraid I can’t see the point you are making about Andy and Isoplots. Are you saying he doesn’t understand six sigma ?
    What is your understanding of what is six sigma ?  Is there are fixed list of what is in and what is out ?  From what we read here, 3.4 DPMO, six sigma tables and isoplots seem to be out, what is in ?
     
     

    0
    #146608

    Mikel
    Member

    Put your name and credentials out there. You are an idiot.

    0
    #146610

    thandi
    Participant

    You may be interested in Wheeler’s very rigorous analysis, based on “probable errors” PE. The PE is the median measurement error.  Advanced Topics in SPC, Ch 17.  He derives fuzzy spec limits and shows :
    USL + 1 PE = 2 chances in 5 of conforming product
    USL – 1 PE = 2 chance is 3 of conforming product.
    Wheeler is essential reading for anyone who is serious about SPC.

    0
    #146620

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Bash Me Too,
     
    My understanding is the official launch of Motorola’s Six Sigma was in 1988.
    You’ve made a very important point. If Motorola won the Malcolm Baldridge Award in 1988 for Six Sigma, the program must have started earlier. (Actually, Bill George told me Motorola would win it late in 1987.)
    Many experts do post on this site .. I don’t consider myself to be one of them.
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #146622

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks …

    0
    #146653

    Andy U’s buddy
    Participant

    Many experts do post on this site .. I don’t consider myself to be one of them.    
    Andy, I do consider you an expert.   And I certainly know more than many others on this site.   (Modesty is for the uncertain, and blatant unwarranted attacks are the mark of insecure narrow little minds with fragile non-supportive egos.)  
    Keep up your well-informed, constructive and intelligent input, although I’m a little dismayed that you’ve moved away from your Aristotelian and Buddhist underpinnings and focused so much lately on offering technical logic and historical relevance – but that’s certainly not all bad and a nice departure from the pure-play dose of rapture seeking illogical confrontation that we’ve recently seen insert itself into forum discourse.   
    Dr. V.
     

    0
    #146658

    neologism
    Participant

    Besides the fact that I don’t think that Andy or anyone should be bashed on this site, it is amazing what kinds of new phrases are coined on this site: a “non-supportive” ego … is that a new six sigma term?

    0
    #146659

    Idle_Curiosity
    Participant

      You said, “I’m just one of those that asked a simple question some time ago and really got hammered. “… why not point us to the thread where this happened so we could quantify the phrase “really got hammered”?

    0
    #146661

    Willing to assist
    Member

    neologism,
     
    I started to just jump in there and help you with this, but I’m betting, as new a concept as this appears to be for you, given the definitional tools and a few rules of logic, you can work it out yourself.  (hint – the words are used in a specific series and therefore their combined meaning is different than their stand-alone meanings might convey, many discrete combinations of words provide unique meanings.)
     
    supportive  /[suh-pawr-tiv, -pohr-]

    providing sympathy or encouragement: His family was supportive of his attempts to be a writer.
    giving support.
    providing additional help, information, etc.; auxiliary: manufacturers of supportive materials.
     
                Main Entry: non-            not : other than : reverse of : absence o
     
    ego /- [ee-goh, eg-oh]

    the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
    Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
    Dr. V. (Neologist)

    0
    #146664

    neologism
    Participant

    Well Dr. V,
    One thing is for sure: Your theoreteical advances in psychology have not advanced beyond the etymological origins of Allport’s first inventory of personality in the 1930s and the age-old theory of Freud. Sorry to say that but you look pretty pale as an academic psychologist. No etymology, epistemology, or logic can help you out of the “armchair’s psychology” of a “theory” of a “non-supportive ego”. Stick with what you know. I like your comments better when they are based on your homeground.  .. :-).

    0
    #146667

    Dr. V.
    Participant

    Neurologjam’ism,
     
    Gads….. what prattle.   And your field is?   Certainly not psychology, even the guys on http://brainquack.tribe.net can string together a more lucid diatribe than that.    And they come with the disclaimer: Armchair Psychology, where unqualified people psychoanalyze themselves and others.  
     
    Oh, wait, that’s right your field is etymology and epistemology – must make for a truly compelling business card:
     

    Mathew L. Bentancourt, III, BA
     
    Six Sigma MBB
     
    Cunning Linguist and Philosopher
    Solving for Origins of Word and Man 

    0
    #146672

    neologism
    Participant

    “Dr.” V,
    There is nothing more amusing than to see a “Dr.” out his or her low intellectual qualities (I guess they sell Dr. titles by the dozens now). Well, so much so for the “legacy” of a certain “Dr.” V … who stopped posting a long time ago and now visits the site in a blue moon to give his/her summary review of what’s in and what’s out. Another “giant” outed for what he/she truly is. You’re amusing to the point of being cute. If only you had a brain … :-)))).
     

    0
    #146674

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I have read the same stuff that claims Motorola was doing Six Sigma in 1986. If they were it was not very apparent to those of us working in the factories. We were using the beginnings of it in 1986 but not under that name on any of my projects. It wasn’t really recognizable until 1988 as Six Sigma but then again that was when I began working with John Lupienski and Marty Rayl so the quality of the leadership improved that year as well.
    If this is as good as you can come up with to impune Andy after all the help he has supplied then he still gets my vote as a legitimate SS expert.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #146687

    Dr. V.
    Participant

    The only littleness and outing going on here is, much like that of a recent Colorado evangelical, your own “Sir.”   It takes a certain snotty little mindset to splash around and flail away like you have in the shallow end of your familial gene pool – and they say it’s not hereditary, in a self-aggrandizing, “Ouuu, let me play too…” series of postings like you have.   You seem to imply that you have a brain, what of note have you done with it?    And please stop referring to me as “cute”, it makes me cringe, I’m svelte.    

    0
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

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