richard schroeder

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General richard schroeder

Viewing 74 posts - 1 through 74 (of 74 total)
  • Author
  • #35182


    Once again I must offer my apologies to the forum. This time, for my delay in responding to the messages directed to me.  Due to my personal choice I no longer spend my days in the boardroom, classroom, office, or in front of a computer.  I actually stumbled onto this website by accident and was so amused by some of the comments I felt the need to put my two cents in.  I have no desire to get involved in debates of minutia or in the fielding of questions from people who think that my lack of response or delay in response somehow decreases my contribution to Six Sigma or diminishes my professional experiences. I have nothing to prove to anyone on this forum or anywhere else and merely meant to point out that the concept of Six Sigma has become an industry where most of the people interested in it do not understand or know enough about it to tell who knows what they are talking about and who doesn’t.  Not intending to sound arrogant, I also do not feel the need to prove myself by answering technical “quiz” questions from people I have never heard of and probably never will.  So please forgive me for not jumping through the hoops provided. I wish the best for each and every one of you.



    Interesting use of the phrase – “put my two cents in.”  Now where have I seen that before?



    Twit.  Play elsewhere then.


    Previous Associate

    Rich, it is very good to know that you are doing well. I
    fully agree with your position about much of the
    discussion on this website. However, several on this
    public forum seem to have some question as to your
    authenticity. To help with this matter, would you be willing
    to share with us the name of the boat you and Dr. Harry
    had located in San Diego? I was there at one time with
    the two of you for a meeting and do remember the boat’s
    name. As my show of my own sincerity, the first boat you
    and Dr. Harry owned was named “Miss Sigma” and was
    docked at Lake Pleasant. Thank you for your reply.



    seas the moment



    Sir, you are a great guy! 
    Unfortunately, many of us (especially those of us out of work in this economy) still have to jump through those hoops with people who do not have the depth of experience or knowledge to be asking.


    Mike Harry

    Rich: I am off-site today with a mutual colleague and he
    just informed me that you were visiting this website. I got
    a kick out of his “authentication” question. Do you still
    have the boat? I saw another Symbol about like it a
    couple of days ago in Hawaii. When you get the
    opportunity, give me a call so we can catch-up on things.
    I have an extremely funny story to share with you about
    o’le Joe Haught. By the way, I found your posted
    comments to be quite accurate. Semper Fidelis, Mike


    Ken Feldman

    Now that we have these two distinguished gentlemen visiting us, possibly they can lay to rest some of the controversy regarding the 1.5 shift and other issues that have been argued between Reigle, Statman, Stan and others.  Would be great to hear from the horse’s mouth instead of more Southern sources.



    Rich and Mike,
    It’s a shame that, although you’ve chosen to grace us with your presence in this forum, that you can’t take the time to address some of the questions regarding the genesis of Six Sigma that have been bouncing back and forth.  But you can, evidently make shallow criticism of the forum participants and participate in inside jokes before you explain that you don’t have time for the trivial and flit off.
    I had not until now, having only read your well-written books, bought into the criticism heaped in your direction by those in the forum purporting to know you.  It appears that you might actually have been in the right place, at the right time, and parlayed the hard work of many into a reputation of Six Sigma “ownership.” 
     Mirabile visu ad nauseam


    Rich Schroeder

    Just remember-there are leaders and followers—
    There are leaders and followers—
    Are you leading Six Sigma as a cultural change to business or following someone else’s path??
    The leaders take risks at he highest levels against all advice from their peers and organization and bring people along to see their vision and then implement the vision with results.
    Yea- you are probably right. We were at the right place at the right time by taking a Design/Quality statistical tool which was implemented in a monochromatic organization that was family owned and parlayed that into a business changing strategy and tool which you and all these thousands on this BB are now mimicking and criticizing.
    How naïve can you possibly be???




    Yep, pretty naive, I guess.   What have you done lately?    Still surfing the same wave?



    Actually, you are the mimic because the Motorola successes you claimed as your own, were in fact achieved in Motorola’s waferfabs by other leaders in Phoenix and in Austin. (Except APRDL – who used more conventional statistical methods under a certain statistician and who later had to transfer a photo process out of MOS 8 (production) because their process had such poor uniformity.
    As for leadership; your first posting reveals your true calling – yourself.


    Mike Harry

    I deeply appreciate the desire and invitation for my involvement in this discussion forum. Of interest, this was the driving reason for my participation (on a temporary basis) in the “Ask Dr. Harry” forum (as presented on this website). I provided answers to a substantial number of questions within this forum – covering a wide array of topics. Since then, the iSixSigma staff has attached a search engine to make a general query more convenient, owing to the large volume of content. Nonetheless, I will attempt to address some of the “burning issues” that seem to dominate this website. One forum participant recently pondered about my perspective of Six Sigma’s history. At the on-set of Six Sigma, there were far more critics than supporters — and even fewer contributors. Over the years this condition slowly reversed itself, to such an extent, Six Sigma became the “new wave” within industry. Throughout the mid 1980s, there were small bands of people (within each business unit of Motorola) that showed interest in the idea of Six Sigma. These individuals (and ad-hoc teams) were helping to define the nature and path of Six Sigma. In this sense, it was much like a jigsaw puzzle that required a progressive series of exploratory “twists and turns.” Many ideas and opinions were cross-pollinated in the hallways, cafes, and meeting places in an attempt to reach consensus (inter-personally and organizationally). In 1984, the idea of DMAIC, black belts, and focused projects did not exist, just the quality goal of DPMO = 3.4. At that time, Six Sigma was little more than an extraordinary quality target that was envisioned by Mr. Bill Smith, accepted by Mr. Robert (Bob) Galvin, and latter driven by Mr. Jack Germaine. It was long on merit, but short on methodology. It was like having Oz without the proverbial “yellow brick road.” There was no grand “system design” for Six Sigma at that time, only a “design concept.” In these early years, there were many fine contributors. Some of these individuals participated in the early development of Six Sigma – either directly or indirectly. Some were within the “inner circle” of Six Sigma at Motorola and others were not. Each had his or her own perspective of what should be done and how to do it. Some were granted formal power to achieve this aim, while others quietly labored in their corner of the corporation. Some ideas were based on facts and math, while others were based on conjecture and past practice. Some published their perspectives, while others did not. Some ideas were adopted and adapted, while others were not. Naturally, we understand that history is a highly retrospective sport. History is written by those that “dig around” in the archives to expose certain types of artifacts (books, papers, presentations, etc.) – sources of documentation that are eventually assembled to form a postmortem understanding. Of course, it is usually the cumulative effect of such verifiable, fact-based, cross-referenced documentation that is ultimately used to validate the evolution of an idea or event. As we say in the practice of Six Sigma: “Let the facts do the talking.” Without saying, many subtleties emerge when the color of credible eye-witness reports is added to the black-and-white picture of facts. Without color, our understanding is often biased by the interpretation of a gray scale. In other words, eye-witnesses are used to fill-in-the-gaps, confirm, and supplement the spaces between the documents, and timelines thereof.As the old saying goes: “Success has many fathers,” not to mention the aunts, uncles, cousins, and nephews. What history has to say, it will say.Sincerely,Mikel J. Harry, Ph.D.



    This post is a question to Dr. Mikel Harry with regard to his post on third generation Six Sigma.
    Sir, I am quite the novice when it comes to Lean and Six Sigma but based upon your brief mention of Six Sigma (GIII) and the information provided on your internet site (SSMI)… 
    (1) Would it be correct to interpret what you call Six Sigma (GIII) as a true integration of Lean (TPS) and Six Sigma? 
    —Possibly similar to the Lean Six Sigma espoused by the George Group?
    Just curious. 
    Is there an article or white paper describing Six Sigma (GIII)?
    Thank you for your answers in advance,
    Ed G-



    Andy U,
    I believe Mr. Richard Schroeder is looking for new clients. Did you not notice that he posted his website in his original e-mail?
    I loved his speech on leadership! A typical big time consultant message loaded with slogans. I found it interesting that Mike Harry in his note refers to Toyota’s quality, “GIII is aimed at small business, delivered at the speed of Fed-X with the quality of Toyota”. Did Toyota build its quality over night using consultants like Richard Schroeder or slogans? Definitely NOT!
    They are many smarter people out there than he is but they don’t go around waving their flags. I still believe he is here looking for new clients.



    I guess we should be expecting Wireless Six Sigma pretty soon! As Wireless is running G3 too. Just a coincidence.
    DMAIC actually looks similar to the model used in one of the four core courses at Motorola that was called Problem Solving…. I remeber it has either four or five phases too. Just another coincidence.



    I felt that the original post was demeaning to all his students. You may well be correct in your assessment.


    ex SME

    I have heard enough undeserved credit being given to Mike Harry and Richard Schroeder, who claim they invented Six Sigma, the DMAIC methodology and the Black Belt concept. In reality, these concepts were first developed and implemented by Mario Perez-Wilson at Motorola in the Semiconductor Sector, where I used to work.
    Mario (as I knew him personally) came out with the idea of training and developing Statistical Methods Engineers (SME) to be coordinators on each facility of Motorola (PHX, C.E., METL, KLM, SBN, MPI, GDL, MKL) in 1987, when he started at Motorola Semiconductor. The SMEs were trained in the US by him for 6 months and some were trained in Malaysia by B. Rigg who reported to Mario. We were taught the M/PCpS methodology – the first DMAIC approach and Motorola’s Six Sigma methodology – and we had to implement it in engineering projects and characterisation studies. The projects were assigned to us before we started the training. We were responsible for the Six Sigma projects, the teams, couching, training, implementing and interfacing with the champions. We had monthly presentations, deliverables, responsibility and accountability. The SME approach for continuous improvement was brilliant, very methodical and worked great. Prior to him, we were using control charts for continuous improvement and occasionally we would do a DOE, GRRs were not even talked about.
    Mario’s methodology was a 5-Stage approach (you can see it at
    1. Process Delineation2. Metrology Characterization3. Capability Determination4. Optimization5. Control
    The success of the SMEs was unbelievable in Motorola, we had saved millions of dollars already by 1991. These were the first truly Black Belts at Motorola. Prior to Mario Perez-Wilson working in Motorola Semiconductor, the implementation of continuous improvement was not methodical nor organized and we were fixing the same problems year after year. He changed all of that with his methodology and the SMEs approach.
    Then, years later, Mikel Harry claimed (circa 1994) his Six Sigma Methodology is called DMAIC, a 5-Phase approach.
    Look at the similarities between Mario’s 5-stage and DMAIC:
    1. Define2. Measure3. Analyze4. Improve5. Control
    If this is not a copy, I don’t know what is! How come Harry did not invented a 3-stage or 6-stage approach?
    How did Mikel Harry got all of this information to come up with DMAIC and the Black Belts?
    In 1991, Mario, Glenn Kirk and B. Rigg coordinated the first SME symposium in Seoul Korea (27-May-1991 – 31-May-1991), where we all presented the projects we were coordinating in our sites. Mario could not attend the symposium because he took a leave of absence from Motorola. Just prior to the symposium, B. Rigg invited Mikel Harry, who had become Director of Six Sigma Research Institute to the symposium, to witness what we were doing and to present his approach. His approach made no sense to us. He did not even talked about characterising gauges prior to collecting data. Most of the stuff he presented we had been doing for years already, and it was a disaster. He then criticize everything we did and started bad mouthing Mario. Nothing positive came out of his mouth. It was very counterproductive. During his presentations we asked him tough questions and he could not answer. Months later we were told his PhD was in psychology and not in engineering. No wander he could not answer our questions.
    Later on, Mikel Harry announces they are doing some publications with Motorola University and the Six Sigma Research Institute and we are asked to change our presentations to fit his format otherwise the projects would not be published. It bothered me, because they took out all references to M/PCpS, which is what started all the projects of improvement in the first place. But, they missed erasing one reference of M/PCpS, which is proof of my account.
    At the end of the SME Symposium, we were all given the proceedings, a two-inch thick book with all the characterisation studies and improvement projects we presented. This is another proof (data) of my account.
    Our entire efforts as SMEs, fell under the success story of the Six Sigma Research Institute and Mikel Harry, when in reality, Harry nor the Institute contributed in any way, shape or form to our success. Later, we were asked to go through the Black Belt training program and they taught stuff we already knew and gave us roles we already had.
    I kept a few copies of the SME Symposium Proceedings. If anybody wants a copy send me your email address.
    I know that in this forum a lot of posts are doubtful. I read the one Mario posted about the first company outside Motorola trained in Six Sigma. The company Carsem is here in Malaysia, and that is a true fact. I also liked the fact he included the names of the people as facts or data, so I will do the same here.
    Some of the people attending the first SME Symposium in Motorola, Seoul, Korea in May 1991, were:
    Glenn Kirk, Bryan Rigg, Adi Bhote, Vincent Tang, Todd Yang, J.J. Lin, Kevin Chiao, K.H. Tan, Baharom, C.C. Shue, Sahidin Kardi, S.J. Lim, Ronnie Manubay, Al Calicdan, Eduardo Bustamante, S.S. Kang, J.H. Suh, A.S. Suk, J.H. Choi, N.K. Seong, T.H. Jung, Y.D. Kang, K.W. You, Mikel Harry, Jim Robertson and Eric Maass.
    The credit for Six Sigma should go to Mario and not to Harry. Mikel Harry just wrote articles and took all the credit of other people’s work, only because he worked high up in the company and had the power to claim everything for himself. Mario is the guru who taught us his approach to Six Sigma, his methodology, his vision to the SME implementation and he wrote a book just to teach us.
    On April 26, 2003, another person made similar allegations to SMEs being the first Black Belts, the post reference is: RE: Black Belt History by MMBB:
    I do not work for Mario or his firm. I am just tired of Richard Schroeder’s offensive language and allegations “I trained everybody” and Mikel Harry’s I invented everything related to Six Sigma. When we all know that both were so high up in their companies, probably all day long in meetings, while my colleagues and myself were doing the true black belt work.


    Ken Feldman

    Fascinating expose and history lesson.  Thanks for sharing your memories and insights.


    Phil Campus

    This appears to be my perfect opportunity to link two recent threads here at isixsigma.
    “How many high priced, six sigma inventor/consultants and their staffs does it take to change a light bulb?”
    “Two, but they want $10,000 for each lightbulb, and at least $1,000,000 as an consulting fee, and will only work with the biggest bulbs in the business. And if the bulb burns out, it’s because the bulb did something wrong.”


    Reigle Stewart

    Dear ExSME: I am sure you were doing very fine Black
    Belt work in your company. However, how do rationalize
    the fact that Dr. Harry has a legal contract between
    himself and Unysis corporation signed in 1986. Mike
    Cyger (head of iSixSigma) and a iSixSigma writer was
    provided copies of this contract last year to facilitate a
    white paper on the subject. This contract and follow-on
    correspondence clearly indicates that Dr. Harry deployed
    the terms “Black Belt,” Brown Belt“, “Green Belt,” and
    “Yellow Belt” in the training programs he delivered for and
    at Unysis (Salt Lake City PCB facility and Roosevelt PCB
    facility) in 1986. These terms are spelled out in black-
    and-white within the contract. Even the corresponding
    curriculum is spelled out. Obviously this is prior to when
    Mario Perez-Wilson joined the semiconductor group in
    1987. As I recall, Mario was at the Motorola’s
    Government Electronics GEG group prior to 1987 (I
    believe in the tactical electronics division). At GEG we
    had an internal newsletter called “The-Roundup.” I still
    have the articles. These articles paint a picture different
    than you say. In a Roundup article written by Murry Allen
    entitled “Customer Satisfaction Through Statistical
    Process Control,” GEG The-Roundup Magazine, Volume
    12, Issue 8, April 9, 1987. The opening paragraph reads
    as follows “To ensure Motorola’s continuous leadership in
    world markets, Dr. Mikel Harry, Communications Division,
    Principal Staff Engineer and Kathie Buffington, Training
    Manager have initiated training in Engineering Statistics,
    Statistical Process Control, Diagnostic Methods, and
    Experimental Design. A long and rigorous instructor
    certification process involving 140 hours of training in
    formal university course work, subject-matter-expert
    training, instructor training, and on-the-job application
    training was recently completed by 10 employees and 2
    university professors [see photograph].” In several other
    issues, Dr. Harry authored several articles on Six Sigma
    and the aforementioned training process. You should
    also read the paper on this website entitled “The Black
    Belt Naming Convention.” Furthermore, I have 1986
    internal correspondence at GEG (where Mario worked)
    that named Dr. Harry to head the Six Sigma effort at GEG.
    I appreciate your believes, but facts speak louder than
    opinion. Reigle Stewart



    With full respect,just advise me please as I’m little confused:once a Japanese expert told me that Six-Sigma is no more than a “modified TQM”:the same statisical and managerial tools,DMAIC for the deming’s PDCA,CTQ for CS and Motorola success story against Toyota success story (TPS),COPQ for the traditional quality costs,finally he concluded American Creative concept against the dazziling successful Japanese TQM??Is that true,let me know as I’m still confused,kind regards.   MMAN


    Reigle Stewart

    ExSME: Given that all of Mario’s work (by your words) is
    from 1987 forward, but Dr. Harry’s initial Six Sigma
    documentation, instructional manuls, books, and articles
    is between 1984 and 1986, I wonder who influenced
    who? Do you have any documents that supports your
    position? If so, please share them with us so we can put
    this issue to rest. Recall that at that time, Dr. Harry was an
    engineer and scientist, not a big-wig as you state (that
    occured several years later). Yet it was Dr. Harry that was
    selected by the Motorola CEO and Chariman of the Board
    to found and start the Six Sigma Research Institute, not
    Mario. Why was this if Mario’s success was as profound
    as you say. Surely, Mario would have risen to the top
    organization if his leadership was so wide ranging and
    profound. Reigle Stewart


    Just Curious

    What is Mikel Harry’s Ph.D. in? In his six sigma book, it says what his field of study for his bachelor’s degree was but when it comes to graduate degree, it just says that he holds a Ph.D.
    Just Curious


    Reigle Stewart

    His B.S. degree was in technology where he majored in
    Electronics. His M.A. degree was in technology with
    applied statistics, both of which were from Ball State
    University. His Ph.D. program was a self-designed, ASU
    approved 4-year doctoral curriculum that focused on
    statistics-based engineering problem solving, technology,
    and knowledge deployment. His doctoral cognate
    (minor) was in computer intensive research methods.
    This specialized degree program was a “split” between
    engineering, technology, statistics, and education. While
    at ASU as a doctoral student, he was assigned to the
    College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, as well as
    the College of Education. He also taught a number of
    undergraduate classes, including safety engineering,
    quantitative design, construction materials, and computer
    programming. Also as a student, he was a member of the
    ASU-IBM advanced engineering study exploring fifth
    generation computers (published in IEEE journal). In
    addition to this, he delivered several continuing
    engineering education seminars in SPC and DOE for
    automated manufacturing with Dr. Douglas Montgomery
    and Dr. Bert Keats. As you may know, in 2002 he
    received the life-time engineering award for “engineering
    excellence.” He also received several distinguished
    engineering awards while serving at Motorola. He was
    also an associate member of Motorola’s prestigious
    Science Advisory Board and served on the board of
    Malaysian Government Design Engineering Institute.
    Currently, he is a member of the Dean’s Executive
    Advisory Council, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering,
    Arizona State University. And the list goes on. For more
    details, please refer to his bibliography on this website.



    Is “Reigle Stewart” really just Mikel Harry? He seems to know an aweful lot about him and always defends him, from what I can tell. Either they’re linked by more than friendship, or they’re the same person. You tell me.


    ol’e Haught

    Always sitting under the table looking for a few scraps hoping that the master isn’t in a bad mood and kicks you one more time. Almost like that jet-ski tattoo. Yeah I want one but you first.
    Mike is an engineer and scientist. Really? I am sure you don’t want to answer Just Curious question. That is too easy to verify. Redeem your idol before he looks like statue of a fallen dictator.
    ex SME is close to correct. He had Mario starting in Semiconductor so the date was 1987. Mario documented several things that occurred earlier when he was with the Government Group so it is safe to say Mario’s work predates the 1987 time of Semiconductor. Maybe if we see the date on that PhD, whatever it is, we can see when he actually went to work.
    It seems odd that you are so intimate with virtually every detail of Mike’s career. It almost seems as if you are  – Mike! Quotes, publications, dates, etc. it is almost like either some sick obsession or the same person. It seems odd that when you two are so close you still refer to him as Dr. Harry?
    Schroeder there is guy who isn’t worth talking about. I believe the name was Shredder. There is a term of endearment.



    I have known my wife for 18 years but I am not sure if I know my wife as well as “Reigle Stewart” knows Mikel Harry. You have a valid point there.


    Reigle Stewart

    I will tell you. Yes, I know a lot about Dr. Harry. We have
    worked together, played together, vacationed together,
    created together, written papers and books together,
    presented together … all over the last 22 years. Together,
    we have watched our children become adults, watched
    each other turn gray, increase our belt size, and laughed
    when the other need reading glasses. We have globally
    deployed Six Sigma across many large-scale
    corporations. My lovely wife Susan and I have been at
    most of his award ceremonies. I was with Dr. Harry all the
    way … at GEG, ABB, Allied Signal, General Electric. I was
    employee no. 002 at the Six Sigma Academy. These are
    things I am proud of. No one could ask for a better friend.
    We are life long friends and know more about each other
    than our wives know, or should know. Any other
    questions. Reigle Stewart


    Reigle Stewart

    Dr. Harry’s doctoral degree was granted in 1984. He
    started to work at GEG Motorola in 1982 as a doctoral
    intern at the Radar Operations Group, GEG. About that
    same time, he introduced the “Logic Filters” problem
    solving strategy that he latter renamed the “Breakthrough
    Strategy” for which his consulting firm (Six Sigma
    Academy) was granted federally registered trademarks.
    This stratedgy was documented in the GEG rag “The
    Round-Up. His book entitled “Achieving Quality
    Excellence: The Strategy, Tactics, and Tools” (350 pages)
    of which I still have several copies was published in 1984.
    In this book he has a chapter that outlines Six Sigma in
    terms of its statistical nature, purpose and aims. After you
    spend 22 years working with someone so closely, you
    learn a lot about them. Besides, I have several file draws
    full of articles, papers, and so on … a lot to draw from.
    Could you please provide citations for Mario’s work in Six
    Sigma? I am beginning to believe you are just another
    heckler on this website. Reigle Stewart



    This thread is alive and well.   I don’t know how Andy got the idea that it was shut down.



    Andy got the idea that it was cshut down by the fact that the “post a reply” button was replaced by the text in bold “This discussion thread was shut down by the forum moderator”. I mean, it WAS actually closed.
    Now it seems that the forum moderator revised his decision, probably in response to the several posts questioning it.



    That’s the message I got when I wanted to ask Reigle to cite his references – i.e. ISBN number and Journals.



    Hi Gabriel,
    The discussion forum etiquette guidelines are straightforward and can be found on the page where forum messages are posted:
    Some of the guidelines are hard rules, such as not promoting your own products and services. Others are guidelines and moderators can take action as they see fit. We understand that some people will try to deceive iSixSigma moderators and readers through various actions — rest assured that this doesn’t happen very often and is not tolerated.
    We try to not meddle as much as possible in discussions, as we believe that the free exchange of ideas is paramount. So, for instance, if someone says that Six Sigma is a terrible methodology or that company ABC has no idea what they’re doing, we tend not to interact as we’re sure that others will chime in and provide their thoughts or data to back up their point of view.
    Very infrequently, threads will continue back-and-forth between two or more individuals who have personal vendettas for each other. When this occurs, we are often notified by many people who find this interaction distasteful/annoying/distracting/[name your emotion]/etc. This type of interaction, while sometimes amusing, benefits no one. In these rare cases where these individuals cannot come to a conclusion by themselves and moderation is necessary, we do step in and close the thread. There are less than 5 threads closed out of over 44,000+ posts.
    In the case of this post, a moderator witnessed both a personal vendetta and the promotion of business services. The offending posts were removed and the thread was temporarily closed. Upon further escalation of this event and review, the thread was reopened and is being monitored to ensure that unproductive behaviors do not continue.
    Our black-and-white rule is: We investigate all notices of forum abuse and take immediate action where we notice it occuring. Being considerate to others is a gray-area, and our moderators act on their discretion and based on reader feedback.
    We’re quality and business professionals, just like you. And we expect civilized behavior, just like you do. We don’t believe in censorship, but we do believe that following the etiquette guidelines benefits everyone. If you have specific comments about our policies that you would like to discuss, we welcome your thoughts. Please email iSixSigma at: [email protected].
    Sincerely,MikeForum Moderator



    Hi Mike,
    I am not questioning neither the etiquette gidelines nor your decisions when acting as moderators.
    I was just answering “Anonymous” who asked something like where on Earth did Andy get that crazy idea that this thread had been shut down, and guessing about the reasons why the decision had been revised.



    Thanks for the inspiration and reminder of past experiences. 
    I’m now going to lead my followers in a positive direction of growth, prosperity and faith.  It’s like a saltwater breeze off the ocean.
    They may be able to incite a response, but you know the truth within – remember that.



    Someone had ask me to review what was being written under the Richard Schroader heading and to make some comments if I wished. After reading what ex-SME had written and the various responses from Reigle and the community, I said “Heck Yea”. I want to describe (a little oral history from my personnel view) what I believed to be the truth and hopefully if someone ever decides to write a definitive history of Six Sigma they’ll have many points of view to consider. I’ll name individuals the best I can so they’ll be no doubt that I exist. I started in Motorola GEG in 84 and met Mikel Harry sometime in early 86. At that time he was reporting to Dick White (Mgr QA). He was working in the Advance Quantitative Lab. Also in the Lab was a colleague his named John Hathaway. I was aware that Mikel and John were generating a lot of classroom material on SPC, DOE and teaching. Also there was one particular book on a Phase Approach to Characterization Study which I believe was the best of the material. There wasn’t any DMAIC or Six Sigma mentioned or cited in that book but it was a comphrensive approach to characterizing a process. I believe in late1988 I did start to see some material starting to appear mentioning the words Six Sigma, but it wasn’t anything about DMAIC or BB GB etc. One example was a pamphlet titled “The Nature Of Six Sigma Quality” by Mikel Harry with no copyright date stated, however within the body of the pamphlet he did cite himself for “Application of the Taguchi Design Philosophy” (1987). So if I were to place a timeline it would be fair to say that the Six Sigma initiative was starting to germinate about 1988. I don’t understand Reigle Steward statement that Mikel Harry had the terms deployed back in 1986 “DMAIC, BB, GB” etc in the training program he delivered at Unysis. I just wished he deploy those terms with GEG in 1986,87,88 ? GEG sure needed it back then. Perhaps management at GEG wasn’t ready to accept the Six Sigma initiative. Also, I’m familiar with the roundup article about the 140 hours of training for some individuals. I ran into some of those individuals. Many couldn’t care less about using statistics to solve problems. I remember the Purchasing manager (Larry Burleson) paying lip service by picking some Buyers just to satisfy some training requirement. There was no attempt to identify a good Black Belt candidate because nothing was mentioned about that. Meanwhile in the Tactical Div. Mario Perez-Wilson was applying his Process Characterization methods to quality issues there. In 1987 Carlos Genardini (V.P. & Gen Mgr of the Small Signal Div., Semiconductor Sector Motorola) brought in Mario specifically to bring the Small Signal Div up to speed in Process Characterization. I believe Carlos heard of Mario and was familiar with some of the work he was doing in the Tactical Div of GEG. So Mario was given the mandate to get the whole thing started within the Semiconductor Sector. In January 1988 I started in the Small Signal Div of Motorola. Mario was starting to establish the SME program and was putting together the Machine Process Capability textbook. He already knew what worked and what didn’t so the methodology was already proven. His method was copyrighted (MPCpS). By the way, years after Mario left the company the engineering community was still using MPCpS methods and documenting the process with the document format he established. This is an indicator that the methods taught do stick around and are not quickly forgotten like other quality initiatives. First, let me say that I respect all that Mikel has done and written in regards to Six Sigma. I have many of his written material. But I must confess, when I read what ex-SME had written I felt like a great truth that’s been lurking in the background has finally come to the forefront. What I didn’t expect was that Reigle Steward was going to respond so vehemently to what ex-SME had written. It reminds me of a line from Shakespear “I think he protest too much”. Let me also say that I have absolutely no financial interest in Mario Perez-Wilson business.In hindsight, when I review all that is good about Six Sigma and comparing it to the program taught to the SME at Small Signal FAB, MPCpS was truly the first “Six Sigma” class. Unlike previous “How To” classes, where you would receive bits of DOE here and Graphs there, this class was an all encompassing “Gestalt” class on how to characterize a process. This was going on in early 88 and beyond. As ex-SME stated, “Prior to Mario Perez-Wilson working in Motorola Semiconductor, the implementation of continuous improvement was not methodical nor organized and we were fixing the same problems year after year. He changed all of that with his methodology and the SMEs approach.”
    The textbook (MPCpS) Mario created reflected years of experience actually solving and charactering processes. When comparing Mikels material with Marios material you notice a qualitative difference. Mikel material uses a lot of jargon from academia and Marios material is more of an application type. For example, Mikel wrote an Application Resource booklet where he has 71 Data Organizer pages (1985). The first thing one would say is ” when the hell am I ever going to use all this stuff”. He also has a section on Problem Solving procedures. This section is very exhaustive with many problem solving strategies but without any mention of DMAIC etc. What I’m trying to bring out is that he is a prolific writer and you have to give him credit for all that but it’s overwhelming for the guy who just wants to solve a factory problem or characterize a process. If this was a court of law and my life depended on a good defense, I would want Mario in my corner and not Mikel. Mikel would overwhelm the jury with details which may or may not have to do with the case at hand.
    On the other hand, Mario’s material is simply written. More Germanic than Latin. Mario’s material can be understood by everyone who’s actually doing something on the factory floor or in an office. Just browse through a copy and not take this writers word for it. I wouldn’t even pay attention to the countless endorsers on Mario’s WEB site, I would just see for myself. Read the Multi-Vari Chart and Analysis book, that’s a good one. If you have a quantitative bent like myself then this is a book you’ll enjoy.
    My name is Orlando and I’m a Quality Mgr of Statistics in a Pharmaceutical company somewhere in New Jersey. By the way, the Pharmaceutical’s need Six Sigma immediately.



    Could you please refer me some links to Mario’s material. I am at present not interested in reading entire books, but if I can get something on what you have mentioned it will be great.
    Thanks in advance,



    I can confirm that Mario’s website is well worth a visit. (I have no association with Mario Perez-Wilson.)



    Hi ssmbb The book I think is the best for process characterization is the original book that got everything started at the Signal Div of Motorola Semiconductor and that is the “Machine/Process Characterization Study-A Five Stage Methodology for Optimizing Process”. That book has been revised many times since it’s inception and is one of the best around. Many industries use that book. Also, read the Gauge R&R Study book. It includes destructive test R&R. Not many books have that. One book which I think does a good job of explaining different variation is the Multi-Vari and Chart book. It’s a little on the mathematical side but it reads very simply and explains different types of variation using an example of a Semiconductor process. The Web site is I would start with these books and I know they’ll help.



    I read your previous two posts on this subject. Thank you for sharing this information with us.  I am one of those guys that knew a lot about statistics but not much about the six sigma history. Since the process has been deployed at my company, I have mainly focused on the process itself but not the history of it. So I find this kind of information very interesting. Reading your posts, it appears that you give most of the credit if not all to Mario Perez-Wilson. Is this a fair assessment? This brings me to my first question. While anyone who is involved with six sigma knows of Mikel Harry, very few people know of Mario, why? Would you comment on this? As I mentioned, I know very little on the history of six sigma, and to be frank with you, I am not sure how much it was true now reading through all these posts.  My second question is about Reigle Stewart. Why does he know so much about Harry?  There were some discussions under this heading that he might actually be Mikel himself.
    Will look forward to your reply.



    Why aren’t proper scientific references  – Journals, date of publications, or book publishers, ISBN numbers, and dates of publication ever provided? We should also ask whether self-publications really satisfy the scientific publication protocols, since they are often not subjected to auditing by referees. If this process is now redundant then it shouldn’t surprise  anyone if their pension suddenly disappears.



    No one person can claim credit. There were dozens of people sticking their necks out and taking this serious. Mario was but one of them.  



    Hi Mike
    Giving most of the credit to Mario Perez Wilson is a fair assessment.  The reason for my point of view is that the process improvement effort that was going on in the Small Signal Div of Motorola during the period of 1987 and beyond was all due to Mario.  When Motorola Six Sigma Institute was created the MPCpS methodology was well established throughout the Div.  Including all the Asian factory sites that ex-SME cited.  I also know that Mikel Harry wrote much material including a book on a phase approach to characterization, however I pointed out that no mention of Six Sigma or the DMAIC approach was listed.  He did published a book with Ron Law Ph.D. GEG where he has a Definition, Analysis, Optimization, and Control phase to characterization but this book was puublished in 1990.  One thing to rmember about the DMAIC is that it use to be MAIC.  My point is that Six Sigma is always evolving.
    Ex-SME made an interesting point,  Mikel Harry was invited to see and discuss all the MPCpS projects that were completed under Mario’s methodolgy.  Right after that we start seeing the methododolgy of Six Sigma.being defined.  I won’t take anything away from Mikel Harry because he did alot of work at Motorola GEG and he did publish some material relating to Six Sigma but nothing that had to do with how to achieve it.
    The reason I believe that everyone knows about Harry and not Mario Perez -Wilson is because Mikel knows how the marketing system operates and how to make it work for him.  Also being a Ph.D. helps in that marketing scheme.  When your buying a Quality book from somewhere does it help your decision if the author was a Ph.D. 
    I knew Mario in Motorola, he didn’t take any BS.  If you didn’t walk the walk he’l let you know including managers.  I’m trying to communicate something intangible like why someone is recognized for creating an idea and another person isn’t.
    On the question of Reigle Stewart.  I believe it was Reigle responding and not Mikel.  I knew of Reigle in GEG but we never worked together.  He was a technician at GEG and worked on some of the project Mikel worked on.  They wrote a phamplet together at one point.  Six Sigma Mechanical Design or something like that.  But I know it wasn’t during the 1980’s it was more in the early 90’s.
    Hope this helps.   Orlando



    The following article used a phased approach (Defintion, Metrology, Analysis, Improvement, and Control, and was published internally to Motorola in about 1986. Most of it was based on Shainin’s lectures, including the Multi-vari chart, which we modified slightly to better show the locations within a process. Bob Galvin even wrote to Mark Hiatt to congratulate him. (I would never have thought to bring this work to his attention!)
    “Experimental Technique for Resist Process Evaluation,” by Mark Hiatt and Andy Urquhart, Semiconductor International, May 1987.
    This is what I regard as a proper scientific reference, but  I make no claims with respect to Six Sigma  – I just wish everyone would get back to using quality technology.


    GEG Exec

    Without sounding too demeaning, you should note that I too was at Motorola GEG during the period you speak of.  I don’t recall Mario playing any type of role in Six Sigma at the business group level.  I am sure he made some contributions within one of the divisions, but not any that were publicly recognized by the top management of GEG or by Corporate Motorola. 
    Reaching into my memory, I do recall that the senior management team of GEG selected Dr. Mikel Harry to head its Six Sigma effort.  If Mario was so involved, why was he not selected?  I know that Dr. Harry was promoted numerous times from the years 1985 through 1990.  I also know he was a member of GEG’s Scientific Society, but Mario was not; why so?  The last I remember, Dr. was was appointed as a Corporate Director and Senior Member of Technical Staff to start and lead the Six Sigma Research Institute. 
    If Mario had such profound contribution, why is it that he never went up the ladder.  I also recall that Dr. Harry was a member of Motorola’s highly prestigous Science Advisory Board (SABA).  Only about 1/2% of all the engineers and scientists in the company were inducted into this society.  I don’t ever recall seeing Mario’s name on the roster. 
    I can tell you this for certain: You don’t get to these positions in the technical hierarchy of Motorola by being a politician or good salesman; you have to demonstrate extraordinary technical contribution to the company as judged by peers, management, and customers.



    Hi GEG Exec
    Don’t worry about sounding too demeaning, the readers of this Forum will determine that for themselves.  As for me, I know myself well and I’m confident enough that I just brush it off if I believe someone was trying to pull one on me.  In other words, be demeaning if you wish it’s OK.  But it seems like you guys keep sounding that way.  Oh well,
    I agree with you on all the great things Mikel Harry has done.  Remember I was there too or else I wouldn’t say what I’ve been saying.  I know that back in 1986 and 1987 Mikel was trying to get GEG to do alot of the things Motorola now accepts as gospel.  He was enthusiastic about it too.  I knew this because my interest is in Statistics so I know by talking to him what his love was.  He was pushing you guys to do statistical methods to characterize processes and to solve quality issues.  He did all the great things you mentioned.  I’m not saying he didn’t contribute.  What I’m saying is that all his methods in Six Sigma were not dreamed up by himself.  For example, while GEG had Mikel.  Semiconductor, on 52nd street had Mario.  In fact there was a whole group there in each Div.: Power, Zener, Small Signal.  Remember, back in those days GEG and Semiconductor were two sectors that didn’t communicate with each other about this stuff.  Sure we had Motorola Univ in Tempe where classes in DOE and Statistics were held but we didn’t visit each other or had any contact where we knew what you guys were doing or you guys knew what we were doing right?  So why are you so surprise that you guys at GEG never heard of Mario.  You didn’t hear much about the Semiconductor sector.
    Mario was in charge of the Statistical Methods engineers in the Small Signals Div. and the Small Signals Div was the most advance in Process Characterization and using a 5 stage method to characterize a process.  Small Signals had many factories all over the world and this method was taught to all of them.  A lot of the teams in the Total Customer Satisfaction competition had used this 5 stage methodology and were very successful.  In fact I knew a team from Mexico who went all the way to Sector level.  This method is so Six Sigma
    One more point about going up the latter.  GEG was heavily regulated by the government and most of your programs were small.  A big fish in a small pond can be notice.  In Semiconductor, we had many FAB’s and  many cost centers, in other words a great big pond.  I don’t think Mikel would have gotten very high in Semiconductor.  The engineers there would have ripped him apart.  It was less genteel than GEG.  Semiconductor operated in a competitive environment where GEG did not. 
    Thanks for responding.


    Reigle Stewart

    Orlando: Seems Dr. Harry went all the way up the
    corporate ladder … even past the semiconductor sector
    engineers. Oh by the way, to reach the position of Sr.
    Member of Technical Staff at Motorola AND be inducted
    into SABA, one had to compete against ALL of the
    engineers and scientists in the company. I think the GEG
    Exec. has a point here. Besides, why did Mr. Bob Galvin
    pick Dr. Harry to lead the Six Sigma Research Institute
    and not Mario. I am with the GEG Exec on this issue …
    seems if he (Mario) was really that good, he would have
    gotten some promotions and been recognized by Mr. Bob
    Galvin, Mr. George Fisher, Mr. Richard Beutow, and the
    Board of Directors. What was the highest position on the
    technical ladder Mario held? If Mario’s books are really
    that good … then why has Mario never been on the New
    York Times best-seller list, or Newsweek bestseller list.
    I’m sorry Orlando … your historical accounting is fairly
    good … but you fail to fully consider WHO was selected to
    lead the company and WHO was left to work in a “small”
    division. This speaks volumes. I have no doubt you
    admire and respect Mario, as all practitioners should, but
    the bottom line is his contributions (as good as they may
    be) were never accepted to become the standard. The
    other thing you forget to mention is that Mario attended
    Dr. Harry’s classes at GEG, not the other way around. So
    who got ideas from whom? Who really cares anyway. It
    all sounds like professional jealousy to me (and sour
    grapes). Maybe Mario rubbed top management the
    wrong way because of his abrubt “take no crap” style.
    You may admire this, but it don’t move corporation. The
    bottom line is that Dr. Harry got the Six Sigma movement
    going outside Motorola, branded it as the premier quality
    system in the world, forced it down the throat of ASQ, got
    industry giants like Jack Welch to buy in, made a fortune
    at it, and now watches all the “reluctant participants” from
    the 80’s that were terrifed to support Six Sigma, now step
    up and try to claim “they did it all.” Who are you kidding …
    the documented artifacts speak for themselves.
    Respectfully, Reigle Stewart


    Quality Guy

    To GEG Exec & Reigle Stewart:
    I can NOT help but think of that line from Shakespeare either “I think he protest too much”. Both of you keep saying Dr. Harry this and Dr. Harry that…. You sound so superficial. I did read his bio. I never saw in my life anyone describe his Ph.D. work or title the way Mikel Harry does it. It always says something along “his undergraduate degree was in technology blah blah and he holds a Ph.D.” Fake! One of the executives in my previous company that I worked for had a B.S. but had TWO honorary doctorate degrees from local colleges.
    By the way, salesmanship is considered more valuable skill than technical skills in fortune 500 companies. You can argue with me on this but data speaks for itself. Do you think in a big company, you can fly up the corporate ladder by just your technical skills? You have to be naïve to think that.
    Lastly, you all talk about Motorola and where all these great inventions started. Correct me if I am wrong but Motorola has been struggling for some years now and its future is still questionable while our Japanese companies are getting stronger every year and stealing the market share. They do NOT do it by slogans and salesmanship but by continuous improvement. Mikel Harry claims that Gen III will deliver quality at FED Ex speed but at Toyota quality level. Once again this is nothing but some nice slogan that some CEO might buy in to it. Toyota did NOT build its quality success at FED EX speed but it did it over many years of continuous improvement and without all these slogans.


    Ken Feldman

    “The bottom line is that Dr. Harry got the Six Sigma movement going outside Motorola, branded it as the premier quality system in the world, forced it down the throat of ASQ, got industry giants like Jack Welch to buy in, made a fortune at it, and now watches all the “reluctant participants” from the 80’s that were terrifed to support Six Sigma, now step up and try to claim “they did it all.” Who are you kidding … the documented artifacts speak for themselves.”
    As far as I am concerned, this is the bottom line.  Who did what is really less important at this point except as an interesting historical retrospective.  We could likewise slam Phil Crosby for his fluffy contribution but he did bring attention to the Quality field and his commercial success paved the way for the growth of an entire industry.  So hats off to the Commercial Giants whether they be Mental Giants or not.  We all have good jobs and plenty of time to post as a result of their hard work.



    Quality Guy,
    I think you hit the nail on the head …
    The reason Motorola was so successful in the 80’s was  because they solved their technical problems. How many companies can claim that today.



    Hi Reigle
    Your a good guy sticking up for Mikel like you do.  He should buy you dinner.  I’m not going to respond anymore on this matter because the historical perspective has been refined more than before and that was my purpose.
    Someone on this Forum notice that Motorola isn’t the “Quality” giant that it use to be.  Well you and I both know that a quality initiative such as Six Sigma has to be constantly reinforce on the target population and management has to be constantly pushed to support it.  For example,  Carlos Genardini Senior (V.P.) had left the Div at 52nd street in the early 90’s while Mario was on leave and his replacement was a fellow named Jerry Curtis.  Well I attended the first staff meeting with Jerry Curtis and the first thing out of his miouth was “What are we doing about scrap”.  My heart sank because I knew right then that this guy was from the “old school”.and he had no clue about what was going on. 
    Mario’s method was pretty much instituted so our quality was good for many years but we couldn’t keep it going forever.  Then in the late 90’s we got Bill George V.P. (Just completed a term as President of Sematech but former Motorolean) and the new slogen was “Back to Basics”  Meaning back to what we were doing before which had proven so successful.  That paints a picture of  Motorola’s decline.
    One more thing about how this discussion got me started.  Please answer to the best of your memory.  I know you and Mikel had written on Six Sigma Mechanical Design Tolerance or something like that and I know that Mikel had written about Six Sigma.  And I know that you had mentioned in one of your previous reply that Mikel patent the BB, GB, and the method during a training session he had outside of GEG.  Well, if you read ex-SME statement that it wasn’t until Mikel attended a SME session in Asia that the Six Sigma method was finally written down.  In other words, It finally gelled or the “How to do it” was realized, where before he just wrote about the statistics behind the Six Sigma standard deviation and the 1.5 drift etc.  Also, other Motorola facilities were doing process improvement and not just GEG.  Since the Motorola sectors were so isolated from each other, how could GEG claim to have the “fellow” and be the Div that showed the world about Six Sigma.  Also, we won the Malcom Baldrige award in 1988 based on what Motorola worldwide was doing not just GEG, RIGHT.   The Baldrige committee visited the FAB’s in Asia and saw what was happening.  Did GEG have FAB’s in Asia or outside Scottsdale AZ.?  Come on, give the rest of the Motorola sectors their due.
         And that’s why I had to respond.  I’ll be quiet for now
    Thanks Reigle  Orlando 


    Reigle Stewart

    Orlando: I do appreciate your conviction and point of
    view, but the artifactual evidence (documents) I have from
    those days does not support several points related to your
    position. Since this topic seems to be based on “he said,
    she said” I will take the initiative and post the key
    documents that nail down specific times, dates, useage,
    etc. Then, people can draw their own conclusions …
    scientifically, by looking at the facts. I agree with you that
    enough has been said for now, at least until the
    documents have been posted. Respectfully, Reigle.



    You’ve done everyone great service .. I think your some of your conclusions speak volumes for the Harryite Six Sigma – it wasn’t used when Motorola was successful ….so who changed the process without qualification, or characterisation, or a ramp up ..



    Hi Reigle



    Hi Reigle
    I keep thinking of that line from Godfather III where Al P. says ” I keep trying to get out but they keep dragging me back in.”
    Well anyway, since you are going to be courteous enough to the Six Sigma community by posting a historical audit trail I though I would post this email I took from the “Machine Process Capability” textbook from the Appendix   I’ll write it like I read it.
    TO: Carlos Genardini (V.P.) SSSP
    FR: Scott Shumway (V.P.) Semiconductor Product Sector Quality.
    DA: 26 May 88 at 15:29:54
    CC: Gordon Chilton (V.P.) Discrete Product Group SPS
            Tommy George (V.P.) V.P. and Asst General Manager SPS
            Jim Norlin – V.P. and General Manager SPS
    I have just completed a review of your division’s Six Sigma roadmap and supporting detailed action plans and goals — An outstanding package.  Your division, with Mario Perez-Wilson’s efforts in coordinating the task, is truly implrementing what we are expecting of all divisions in the sector.  That is: Application of the Six Sigma roadmap as it applies at the division level, generation of the specific action plans and goals to support the stated objectives and rates of improvement, and incorporation of these into the division five year plans.
    Thanks for your leadership in our quality improvement process.
    Signed:  To Carlos Thanks- good job!  Jim N.
    Reigle, you notice that the V.P. in charge of the division gets the credit from the Semiconductor General Manager.  Like the V.P. did all the work.  Isn’t that how it always is.  I know that in Semiconductor Product Sector SPS that was the way it was done.  That’s why I mentioned that Mikel wouldn’t have gotten very far in this highly competitive environment.
    OK I’ll shut-up now.  I promise.  Your turn to post.
    P.S.  Notice the date of the email.


    Reigle Stewart

    Orlando: As I previously stated, I am sure Mario did some
    very nice work. I am not trying to minimize this work.
    However, Mario’s work and approach was not selected for
    elevation to the corporate level. As you well know, Dr.
    Harry’s work was (as this is a matter of historical record at
    SSRI, Motorola Inc.). You also fail to acknowledge that
    Mario was in Dr. Harry’s classes at GEG prior to the date
    of your posted “document.” You also did not mention the
    “highest” rank that Mario held while employed at
    Motorola. Surely, if his work was that good, then the
    Sector Vice President would have lobbied for his work at
    the Board-of-Director level of Motorola. You may not
    know this, but several approaches to Six Sigma were
    considered by the Board of Directors, CEO, and Sr. VPs,
    but Dr. Harry’s approach won out. That is likely why Mr.
    Bob Galvin sponsored Dr. Harry and not Mario. Again, I
    am certain Mario’s work has great merit, but the world just
    did not believe is was the “right thing;” otherwise, it would
    be Mario that is recognized in the world. Respectfully,
    Reigle Stewart



    Reigle, I know that I’m a little off the subject, but I want to make sure that I am not misinterpreting you. 
    Are you implying that: Title and Rank = Vaule and Accomplishments?
    Because you can’t be that naive.
    ps.  I find it fasinating that multiple people can remember the history so differently.


    Reigle Stewart

    Stevo: Of course not. How absurd. Neither will I be
    “pulled in” to an even more ridiculous discussion. I am so
    sick and tired of reading wildly different versions of
    history, I finally decided to do something about it. As we
    speak, I am filtering through all of Dr. Harry’s old
    documents (several file cabinets full) and then will
    assemble them into a documented time line of events.
    Then, beyond any doubt, people can see first-hand “who
    said what and when.” For example, I have the Unysis
    contract where Dr. Harry deployed (for the first time ever)
    the terms “Black Belt” and “Green Belt.” This was in 1987.
    Then, he took the concept to Motorola at SSRI (also
    thoroghly documented). As another example, I will post
    the General Electric contract that demonstrates the Six
    Sigma Academy was in fact the “prime” contractor for the
    deployment of Six Sigma (as signed by the corporate
    officers). As you know, many consultancies try to claim
    “they implemented Six sigma at GE.” These documents
    will finally put all of this squabbling to rest. Reigle Stewart



    Hi Reigle
    I’mmm back.  Sorry about this.  I know I promise myself I wouldn’t be doing this but as you know when you write something down you get to thinking about the things you should have mentioned.  Very short.
    After I posted that email message from the Hunchos at headquarters of the Semiconductor Sector (SPS) mentioning Mario’s effort for the Div. I thought that “Hey, this email is dated May 88, surely Reigle would say to himself -damn this pre-dates alot of the stuff Mikel has done, What can I say now!”.   What you stated in your last message was all true.  Bob Glavin did choose Mikels proposal above all others.  He was picked to lead the Six Sigma effort.  Great accomplishments. This includes being picked Director of the Six Sigma Institute in Schaumberg Ill.   But if you read that memo carefully, you will notice that it addresses specific action plans and goals to support the stated objectives.  Remember that Corporate mandated the whole Motorola to implement Six Sigma.  The date on the momo is May 88.  Oh my god, Mikel was still in GEG explaining how Six Sigma was tied to a manufacturing process.  He hadn’t even published Six Sigma Producibility Analysis and Process Characterization (1990) with Ron Lawson yet.  He was still doing great writing and publishing internal books for the company.  Doing things someone in graduate school would do alot of.
    When the memo clearly states that the roadmap for implementing Six Sigma was already laid out in May 1988.  How could anyone be identified as being the person who thought up all these wonderful things.  Reigle to Mikel, Ohps you address him as Dr Harry.  “What are we going to say next?”
      That last line was just to add humor.  Don’t take it no other way OK



    While addressing AlliedSignal and GE, please address why Mikel’s materials were not used at either company to train BB’s and GB’s.
    It is easy to document the truth of this statement.
    I acknowledge that SSA had the contract, they just had vaporware to deliver. SSA was covered, not by you employee #2 (where were you anyway?), but by others.


    Reigle Stewart

    Orlando: It is most unfortunate that your dates are wrong.
    The producibility book was first printed and distributed in
    Motorola in 1988 (according to the technical publications
    information on the inside cover). The second printing was
    then undertaken by Addison Wesley publishers (owing to
    its popularity). It was again printed in 1992. The Vision of
    Six Sigma (also authored by Dr. Harry) was first released
    in 1986 as an extensive white-paper and then in 1987 as
    a book. Do you have a book or white paper from Mario
    prior to this date … not likely … I wonder why? Motorola
    University Press ultimately sold 500,000 copies of this
    book (Nature of Six Sigma) … at least thats what the
    publications report from Motorola University Press shows.
    Why did’nt Mario’s book get published by Motorola for
    public distribution? These are the “documented” facts
    buddy, unlike your memory. You may also be unaware of
    the corporate documents in 1988 which calls out Dr.
    Harry to start working with corporate headquarters on a
    global Six Sigma approach … before being transfered to
    Corporate Headquarters in 1990. Interestingly, one of
    these documents is from the Director of Quality at
    Semiconductor Product Sector asking for Dr. Harry to
    represent SPS. Wow, this is really odd given that Mario
    was at SPS. Wait till you read the correspondence from
    Scott Schumway. Reigle Stewart.


    Reigle Stewart

    Stan: Focus on your paper … you will have your hands
    quite full in a few weeks from now. Reigle Stewart.



    Hi Reigle
    I’m sorry, you were right about the printing date.  I incorrectly looked at the lower inside cover where it said copyright.  In the right lower cornor it reads 3-03-88.  I believe the second printing was 1990.  I tried to paint a true picture of this history so if you see that I’m wrong and I agree then I quickly let the Six Sigma community know.  That way I’ll always be credible with this community.
    But still, the Six Sigma plan was already pretty much laid out by 5/88.  I don’t know why Scott Shumway said Mikel can head the SPS Six Sigma effort for SPS.  You got me on that one.  I guess I’ll way for the paper trail your putting on.
    Thanks Reigle for pointing that out


    Casual Observer

    I read with fascination the post or discussion between Riegle and Orlando about the history and time-line of the DMAIC methodology, black belt idea and who truly invented it.
    Riegle claims he has “cabinets full” of documents, like contracts between GE and Six Sigma Academy, and threatens to show it to us. 
    It is known that Dr. Mikel Harry sold his Six Sigma Academy to others.
    My question is.  Did Riegle or did Dr. Mikel Harry stole these “cabinets full” of documents and contracts, which obviously belong to Six Sigma Academy.
     The more I read about Riegle and Dr. Mikel Harry, the more I am convinced that they have difficulty differentiating what belongs to them and what belongs to others.



    Dear Caual Observer,
    You should change your name to astute observer …
    Andy U



    Hi Andy
    I’m happy that many readers of this forum take a keen interest in the historical development of this very important quality initiative.  My purpose was to just give the Six Sigma community a sense of what went on during those very early and critical years.  I didn’t want to short change Mikel Harry because what he did to define Six Sigma and layout what it meant was truley very important.  What I wanted the Six Sigma community to understand was that Six Sigma in total and it’s elements (DMAIC, BB,GB,YB, role of Champions, etc…) was not the creation of one individual but a creation from a bunch of hard working men  and women in Motorola who found themselves being challenged by the competitive environment and came up with this initiative.  I just singled out Mario Perez-Wilson because in my eyes and in the eyes of many in SPS he contributed the most to this challenge.
    When ex-SME stated that Mikel saw SPS presentations in regards to how to implement a characterization process through a 5-phase method and with who to implement the characterization, Mikel started to come out with the phase concept and who would implement characterization.  I’m not saying anything negative about what he did on this because I and many others would do the same and it did change history.  As far as what Reigle said that Mikel was the one that sold it to ASQ and everyone bought into it.  That was great.  He is a great Salesman.  And maybe that is the reason we should give him alot of the credit.  After all, if he couldn’t sell this thing then most of us would be out of a job or define our roles other than BB
    I can compare this Six Sigma system and it’s cultural change to an idealogy. .  For example, if Six Sigma was a communist system, then Mikel Harry would be like a Karl Marx and Mario Perez-Wilson would be like a Lenin.



    While I respect your views, the scientific way to handle these issues is to provide published references and ISBN numbers. My reason for providing a strawman was to get the ball rolling, but all we’ve seen so far is references to ‘bottom drawers,’ course material,’ internal memo’s, etc.
    If anyone believes there has been an invention ( I don’t) then they should follow internationally accepted conventions.
    Andy U



    In most cases I would agree with you but I began thinking of this.  If Matthew John Luke and Mark published their material taking full credit for Christian dogma, then we wouldn’t know about Jesus.  In other words, if a person doesn’t publish and another person does, then that is proof that the person publishing the material is the person responsible for it’s content?.  I know Ph.D.’s who do nothing but write and publish Quailty material and some of us look to them as if they know what a factory floor llooks like. 
    Let me describe to you a little scene that took place in GEG when I went into Mikel Harry’s office.  First, Mikel was always super busy writing on his computor.  I notice that he had about three or four books spread out next to him.  He would be reading them and writing down on some document he was creating.  I didn’t bother disturbing him but I couldn’t help thinking to myself  “Oh that’s the way these guys do it”.  In fact, that is what graduate school teaches.  How to do research and write and publish.  There is nothing wrong with that but I rather be on the factory floor and learning what the process is doing there.  Sure I’ll read what Quality writers or Six Sigma writer have to say about a process.  And these people are our hero’s because of this material they generate.  They are the ones who define the theory.  But process issues don’t always lend themselves to well layed out phase approaches written by someone with writing skills.  That’s why I try to tell the real story.  I don’t have the big picture but I have enough of it that Mikel Harry’s big guns are smoked out to refute it.
    On published material from Mario.  Mario Perez-Wilson published many books.  Review his WEB site.  But if your looking for some kind of academic jargon, you won’t find it there.



    Perhaps you could persuade Maria to provide some ‘scientific references’ as well, as I think Reigle has made a fine start. As you point out it is often quite difficult remembering where one first sees something, which is why we have the publication system.
    Personally, I found all the published quality methods at the time sufficient to achieve dramatic improvements in Motorola’s waferfabs in the 80’s, without having any recourse to Dr. Harry’s work. While we were all  working on ‘Rolled Yields’, presumably Dr. Harry was playing with ‘constructor sets’ and writing his ‘Design for Manufacturability’ course based on Sea-sub-peak-eyes ( a pronunciation we all found rather amusing.)


    DOE Man

    Hello All,
    I too am an ex-Motorolan.  I was hired in August 1986 at Motorola’s Tactical Electronics Division (TED), and worked as a Quality Engineer for Larry Bartlett on the infamous FMU-139 bomb fuse and initiator program.  It was on this program that I met and worked shoulder to shoulder with Mario Perez-Wilson.  He, along with many other people, made the program extremely successful and a showcase for tours of external companies wanting to see the successful workings true SPC & DOE on a production floor.  Make no mistakes; it was Mario’s effort alone which made the program successful from a statistical point of view.
    After about one year working on this project I went to work in TED’s Central Board Manufacturing Group where I continued to use what I had learned on the 139 and implement DOE improvements, Control Chart methodologies, and Preventive Controls now placed into Mario’s handy 5 stage overall methodology. 
    It was at this point (1987) that Mario was hired by Carlos Genardini at SPS.  After approximately one year in his new position Mario hired me as one of his SME’s. Back then there were only three of us.  Part of our charter as SME’s was to learn Mario’s book and teach directly from it.  This was Mario’s golden touch.  He has a natural ability to make what can be a very complicated subject and distil it into a very simplified text that all can read and understand.  The fact that the text was a step-by-step recipe/teaching tool also lent to better understanding, comprehension and retention.  The main reason why Michael Harry was and is better known than Mario is that Mario is self published and insists on remaining so, therefore distribution is the key factor.
    During this time I also knew Mike Harry, Steve Hathaway, Howard Berg, Ron Lawson, his daughter Kathy and several other members of Motorola’s Statistical population.  Mike has always been outspoken and passionate about statistics, this is apparent in his publishing’s, of which I have most.  None of these texts mention Black belts, or SME’s.  Mike was also an intimidating figure when statistical discussions came about.  I have always been interested in implementing statistical methods on the production floor.  I now have 18 years of direct experience in doing so.  I know what works, and what does not.  Mike’s approach is from a purely academic point of view.  He can out argue anyone I know in statistics, but he falls far short in practical application.  Several attempts to get consensus on methodologies were made.  I distinctly remember myself, Mario, Mike, Howard, and several others making more than one attempt to organize ourselves as one.  However egos, on both sides, made this less than possible.
    During the 1st SME Symposium in Seoul, Korea, we all presented one to two completed projects.  The group was energized and truly excited to be there.  I was so pleasantly surprised to see the accomplishments of my fellow colleagues.  After several days of these types of presentations, Mike was invited to present.  He more or less overwhelmed the group with his typical jargon and rhetoric that just fell flat.  To add insult to injury, this went on for over two days.
    Please do not misunderstand; Mike has contributed to the statistical world in his own way.  There are many gems of information in his teachings.  I just found his teachings to be more confusing than practical.
    In the end, this discussion is interesting, but not too productive.  I have my own company now and have been consulting with Fortune 500 for several years now.  Subjects such as 6 Sigma, Design for Six Sigma, Reliability Methodologies, are ever changing and evolving.  This has already been mentioned.  What important is to continue doing this good work and making our manufacturing jobs return to this country.



    DOE Man,
    I am always looking for new (or in this case, maybe old but new to me) reads on this type of information.  Since Mario is self-published – how can one obtain a copy of his book(s)?


    DOE Man

    Hello Doug,
    Mario’s books can be purchased directly thru his website: 
    DOE Man



    ex SME could you email me a few copies of the SME Symposium Proceedings that you kept? I am doing research work on how six sigma came about? I am also interested in the why’s behind it.. the situation, the environment, and anything related to it during the time of its inception. any other contributors would be greatly appreciatied. Thank you very much. My email address is [email protected]
    Paolo Reyes
    MS – Industrial Engineering Studend, De La Salle University –  Manila

Viewing 74 posts - 1 through 74 (of 74 total)

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