revolution

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].

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

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
 

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.

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

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.  

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

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?

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.   

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

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.  

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.

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.  

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.