iSixSigma

revolution

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #36848

    Johnny Guilherme
    Participant

    Darth HiLots of messages on this revolution subject. I am from South Africa. Can you tell me in short what this whole debate is exactly about. I have found some of the discussion quite interesting, but i did not understand the root of the message. Maybe because I am so far away-I dont quite understand all the lingo.regardsJohnny

    0
    #107259

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    JG,
    We are currently in South Africa also. Please email me at [email protected]. I would be interested in speaking with you. We are leaving on Tuesday night from Joburg for the US. We are headed for the ASQ conference in Ft Lauderdale hopefully behind the Ivan hurricane.
    Regards.

    0
    #107273

    Mikel
    Member

    Johnny,
     
    In short there is an ongoing debate within the long time practitioners of Six Sigma and related tools about the value and contribution of some who are claiming to be originators and innovators in Six Sigma. This one in particular started from a press release where, among other things, there is apparently an e-learning offering to learn Green Belt in 36 hours. The person making the claims also claims to have over a decade of experience in implementing Six Sigma although 10 years ago, he was a mid level Quality manager and did not know what Six Sigma was. In one of his earlier books, he had a introduction written by Dr. Harry where it was claimed that Dr. Harry had personally mentored him in the early nineties even though it is clear that the two never met until 1995. The question is one of credibility of both.
     
    Somewhere during the thread, Quality Pro showed up and started with a familiar theme of Dr. Harry is the root of all things Six Sigma. There is reason to question this at many levels, but if for no other reason Dr. Harry has become irrelevant in the Six Sigma community. His latest book is a rambling argument for the 1.5 sigma shift that claims it is only about design even though it is clear it is built into the assumptions around delivery.
     
    Before someone else points it out, I have written no books. I have also not thrown any hype out into the marketplace about Gen III or this revolutionary stuff of e-learning for the masses. I believe Six Sigma is a face to face sport and all of this is just about a couple of greedy guys trying to capture money without capturing value. The real test is about what your customers say and do after the fact. The truth is that their customer’s don’t recommend them to others.
     
    To be fair go read their websites and books and judge for yourself. I recommend both of their writings and I have been one of the chief promoters of people reading especially the writing of Dr. Harry. To be honest, my objective is to get people past being in awe of an author having an ISBN. Their writings are awful (my opinion) and I have purchased and read everything written by both and many others. I also think the writing of Michael George is trivial to be fair. What do I think the best book on Six Sigma is? – Good to Great. Not about Six Sigma you say? Wrong – it describes exactly what is needed to make breakthrough project work viable. What else should someone interested in Six Sigma read? Deming, Juran, Taguchi, Peters, Waterman, Montgomery, Box. Advice from Mike Carnell, if he is not promoting someone’s consultancy, will also be extremely valuable. He is one of the most solid practitioners and truly has roots to the beginning.
     
    Just my opinion, but beware of the hype masters and stretchers of the truth. If they lie about their contribution and experience, what else will they do if invited inside your company?
     
    If you want more information, e-mail me at [email protected].

    0
    #107293

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Johnny:
     
    Please recognize that Stan (and a couple of his cronies) is one of the very few contributors on this website that has a personal vendetta against Dr. Harry.  Just read through Stan’s (and the others) historical postings and you will discover first-hand what I am talking about.  You will instantly recognize that such extreme bias is rooted in fact less opinion obviously stemming from professional jealously.  You can verify these assertions for yourself.
     
    Please feel free to contact me [email protected] and I will provide you (or anyone else) the website address that displays the referenced corporate documents.  Several months ago I promised the Six Sigma community access to these documents and now I have delivered on my promise.
     
    1)       Stan claims Dr. Harry never gives Bill Smith credit for Six Sigma, yet virtually all of Dr. Harry’s writings acknowledges Bill’s pivotal role and contributions. 
    2)       Stan claims Dr. Harry did not create the Black Belt terminology, yet there exits corporate documents that clearly show otherwise.  Stan claims Dr. Harry did not invent MAIC, yet there are corporate documents that clearly show that he was the inventor.  In fact, Quality Pro recently posted a noncommercial website (Dr. Harry’s biographical information) where these documents can be viewed on PDF files, yet the moderator of iSixSigma immediately deleted the posting while other clearly commercial and promotional postings were allowed to remain on the discussion forum.
    3)       Stan claims Dr. Harry is irrelevant, yet Quality Digest magazines recently called him out as “the worlds leading expert on Six Sigma.”  CEO magazine is soon to release a very large article on Dr. Harry and his impact on the world’s top companies.  Dr. Harry is currently the lead consultant to the Chairman of POSCO, the world’s fourth largest steel manufacturer and is also working with Samsung.
    4)       Dr. Harry’s work is endorsed by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the Korean Standards Association.  In fact, the nation of Korea just named the new Six Sigma award in honor of Dr. Harry.
    5)       In one paragraph of his recent posting, Stan says “If for no other reason Dr. Harry has become irrelevant in the Six Sigma community”, yet in another paragraph, he says “To be honest, my objective is to get people past being in awe of an author having an ISBN.  If someone is “irrelevant” then why would Stan be so concerned about others being in “awe” of them.
    6)       Dr. Harry has been recognized by many of the world’s top CEO’s and has been given many awards for his many innovative contributions to Six Sigma.
    7)       Dr. Harry has been a best-selling author on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Amazon.com best-selling lists (also documented on the aforementioned website).
    8)       Most of all, Dr. Harry offered to “debate” Stan at the ASU campus.  Of course, Stan agreed, made claims, and then never showed (even after saying repeatedly he would be there).  He did not even submit a paper.  Of course, you can call ASU about the reality of this (as others have).
     
    And the points could go on and on.  Bottom line is simple.  There are corporate documents that support every claim that Dr. Harry has made, back-up by testimonials from top corporate executives and CEO’s.  Stan has nothing except opinion.  He chooses to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
     
    Please feel free to contact me [email protected] and I will provide you (or anyone else) the website address that contains the referenced documents.  Several months ago I promised the Six Sigma community access to these documents and now I have delivered on my promise.

    0
    #107300

    Mikel
    Member

    You are right, I was wrong. No one is in awe of his books – he is irrelevant.

    0
    #107301

    Just a Green Belt
    Participant

    Hate to say this Stan, but the Bob Galvin video on the
    mikeljharry website sure don’t look irrelevant to me. The
    documents are pretty convincing. Do you have any
    documents? Some of you guys are really in left field on
    this one.

    0
    #107302

    Tate r tot
    Member

    GB,
    Let’s see a debate that was scheduled by Harry run by Harry’s cronies. Harry’s website. Everything Harry does says Harry did it all. How come so many people from Motorola don’t buy it? Maybe the people who were there know what happened?
    I am putting my money on Mario’s website to tell a version that is a lot closer to the truth. 
    Try http://www.ascsixsigma.com/ASC6SHIST.html 
    No doubt Harry was there. Obviously there were a lot of people there. That is the issue.
    Tate-r-Tot
     

    0
    #107303

    PHX Club
    Participant

    Forget this Harry guy.  Stan has to take on Joe who threw down the gauntlet.  I notice how he is avoiding that one like he did out in PHX.

    0
    #107304

    Green Belt
    Participant

    Tate-r-tot must have missed the Bob Galvin video. If
    nobody at Motorola buys it why does Bob Galvin (former
    CEO and Chairaman) call him an “old friend” and
    acknowledge his contributions to Motorola and society in
    such a strong way? This was awfully convincing for me. I
    would say Dr. Harry was a lot more than “just there” as
    you say. Who else from those times has such
    endorsements and documents? I ain’t seen none. Hell,
    even the executive director of ASQ acknowledges his
    contributions in a letter.

    0
    #107305

    tights wearing caped guy…
    Member

    I agree.  I’m just a little disappointed with Joe – not when he tugged Superman’s cape hitching a ride on the speeding bullet (or was is co-jumping the tall building?) but I spent 3 or 4 minutes pointing out the kryptonite pile for him.    All he has to do is speak in software development tongues and be abrupt and rude and he’s golden – well sort of brassy anyway.
    Joe – don’t take this abuse.  Jump in there and lay waste to the tights-wearing caped guy.     

    0
    #107306

    Tate r tot
    Member

    Green Belt,
    Being somebody’s old friend doesn’t mean they made it happen. Old Larry Lichtenburg worked his butt off then got left in the dust but not all his work with someone elses name all over it.
    Lets take a look. I believe Allied Signal began in January of 95. It wasn’t even mentioned. Maybe there wasn’t any real contribution. It says Schroeder was part of Six Sigma Academy in 1994. Well he was a VP at Allied Signal in 1995. Not reporting to Bossidy by the way. He was on Jim Cerk’s staff. That does sounds like a conflict of interest.
    A GE annual report talking about Six Sigma. There is something special. The special part is that Harry’s name isn’t in it anywhere. An agenda from Crotanville with a little shot in the morning and then the highlight. He got right after lunch when everyone is wide awake. Pass the Tums. Again.
    Lets be a little more selective. If that collection of industrial tourism convinces you of anything then it is hope that you are grasping at not reality. I’m stickin with Orlando and Perz Wilson.
    Tate-r-Tot

    0
    #107309

    Tate r tot
    Member

    Reigle,
    What is with this school yard fight mentality. Joe never showed and it is your interpretation, as usual, that Stan is avoiding him. Convenient.
    You and Dr. Esoteric actually told all those folks in India they needed to catch up? It was in the paper there! A little to much curry that day? Sounds like more good publicity for US foreign policy.
    Tate-r-Tot

    0
    #107311

    Dr. Esoteric???
    Participant

    Hate to break your stride there tot, but I like that one – “Dr. Esoteric.”   Would it be OK with you if I used it from now on?   I’d hate to get called on using someone’s ID.  Thanks.  

    0
    #107314

    Annonymous
    Participant

    Go read Perz Wilson’s “Six Sigma History” on his website.
    Mario Perz Wilson does not even mention Bill Smith or
    any other major contributor to the six sigma movement.
    His entries reads like a string of a process improvements
    that any good black belt could show after a few years of
    practice. After reading his so-called historical accounting
    it is obvious he was a front line engineer locked away on
    some project in the desert. Sorry Tate-r Tot but Mario’s
    timeline is not that of a shaker and mover. A really good
    practitioner of statistics, yes. A shaker and mover of six
    sigma, no.

    0
    #107315

    Mikel
    Member

    I must admit the video is very informative – Bob worked with Mikel a few times. Knows of the contribution from reports. Very, very impressive.

    0
    #107316

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey, I am really tired of the picking on Reigle. Lets all help him with some data –
    1) Show of hands – how many of you that consider yourself a good “belt” used any material from Mikel in your training?
    2) How many of you think that a person who takes credit for other people’s work should be respected?
    3) And most important, what do we think about a person who has been abused and ignored by a person who not sucks up to them?
     

    0
    #107317

    Mikel
    Member

    Correction the not should be a now –
     
    Hey, I am really tired of the picking on Reigle. Lets all help him with some data –
    1) Show of hands – how many of you that consider yourself a good “belt” used any material from Mikel in your training?
    2) How many of you think that a person who takes credit for other people’s work should be respected?
    3) And most important, what do we think about a person who has been abused and ignored by a person who NOW sucks up to them?

    0
    #107318

    lost in translation…
    Participant

    I think that you are just tired – plain and simple.  Is it possible that your logic and argument are fragmenting at this point?   It seems that you are so anxious to affect a positive and fact-based counter to the postings of the day that you are not thinking through how best to position and state your case.   An example of this is the posting that I am responding to, your points one and two were clear, but what does the third one mean? 
     
    3) And most important, what do we think about a person who has been abused and ignored by a person who not sucks up to them? 
     Who was abused?   Who ignored whom?    And who not sucked up to whom – and what does that mean?    This is most confusing and more than a tad cryptic.   

    0
    #107319

    still a little lost…
    Member

    OK – as I was writing my question you were writing a partial answer.   The sentence is now   more cohesive and grammatically correct – but, still, what does it mean? 
     
    3) And most important, what do we think about a person who has been abused and ignored by a person who NOW sucks up to them?
     Who was abused?  Who was ignored?   And who NOW sucks up to whom?    And I really have been trying to pay attention to the yin and yang of Six Sigma dogma – regardless of who relates it.   

    0
    #107321

    Annonymous
    Participant

    Its absolutely amazing the lengths some people will go to
    after getting lost in their own maze of hatred. The posts
    and ramblings of Stan sure underscores why some
    people have found it necessary to burn books, hide the
    truth and preach the message of subversive corruption.
    This is always a hidden devilish plot in their minds and
    someone who must be dethroned to satisfy the need of a
    tyrantical lunatic acting in the name of destiny. Stan, I
    don’t know what all is going on here, but it is apparent that
    you really need a life, maybe even some therapy.

    0
    #107326

    Mikel
    Member

    as always Reigle/QualityPro/StatmanToo/….. I appreciate your unbiased opinion.

    0
    #107327

    Mikel
    Member

    ask QualityPro/StatmanToo/Anonymous – he understands.

    0
    #107348

    can’t explain?
    Participant

    That’s actually a pretty weak response.   You can say it but you can’t explain it?  Part of stepping to the plate is supporting your case – with the predicate assumption that you can, or will, explain your case/position.  

    0
    #107351

    Mikel
    Member

    Of course I can explain it, but it is better explained by the person it applies to.

    0
    #107359

    not to belabor, but…
    Participant

    What do we [the forum?] think  > about a person (person 1) > who has been abused and ignored [person 1 was abused and ignored] > by a person (person 2) who NOW sucks up to them [it appears that person 2 is now sucking up to person 1]
     So, following this convoluted logic, IF person 1 is RS, AND person 2 is MH, THEN  MH ignored and abused RS, but MH has begun to suck up to RS, which sounds a little odd when you note the apparent level of MH self-esteem exhibited on the MH web site.   With that said, if this as Stan believes, applies to someone please step in and explain yourself.

    0
    #107385

    SM
    Member

    A little on S&M relationships. Kick me, hurt me, may I lick your boots now?
    You don’t have the relationship piece worked out right.

    0
    #107388

    hapless reader..
    Participant

    Yep, I agree.  Stan of the Stan and Mikel S&M duo did not have the relationship worked out right in his/her initial and subsequent postings – it’s possible that gender confusion on the Stans’ part helped lead to message obscurity.   Getting conceptual clarity, syntax, grammar and spelling correct when questioning the contribution and professional standing of giants in the field does not seem too much to ask for on the part of forum readers – the true innocents in this war of attrition.  

    0
    #107391

    Heebeegeebee BB
    Participant

    Stan,
    Stay the course…There are enough of us here who know the truth about Reigle/Qualitypro/phxteam/anonymous/etc…
    Take comfort in the fact that hisrep is shot…a result of his own doing, I might add
    -Heebee

    0
    #107396

    Annonymous
    Participant

    Heebee whatever. No, I am not Reigle Stewart, but if your
    paranoia wants me to be Reigle, then its OK by me.
    Yeah, you are among the select few that posseses the
    “truth” and you probably even know of governement plots
    and the location of aliens. Its amazing how you guys burn
    up all kinds of bandwith professing stuff; claiming to know
    the real truth but never, never discuss or present any
    facts. Problem is there are no institutions or recognized
    figureheads that support your position or ugly comments.
    Do you honestly have any idea how goofy you guys look?
    You trash people on this site but I have never seen any of
    you say “I talked on the phone (or in person) with so and
    so today, and he/she said …” I guess you can’t do this
    because they would not give you the time of day. This
    says you are content to fabricate things and twist reality,
    like an undergraduate trying to quote out of context
    believing they are a hit with the professor. Ignorance
    really is bliss, huh.

    0
Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

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