iSixSigma

Shanin Quality Principles

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Shanin Quality Principles

This topic contains 129 replies, has 44 voices, and was last updated by  GB 12 years ago.

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 130 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #33325

    Kraig Schell
    Participant

    I am a Six Sigma Black Belt living in Maysville, Kentucky.  I have a potential employer who’s only reservation about hiring me for a Quality Manager’s position is that I have no experience with Shanin Quality Principles.  I am having trouble finding any information about this anywhere.  Amazon books does not have anything and ASQ’s web site only has a paragraph about the person Dorian Shanin and that he was a pioneer in statistical engineering.  Is this the new quality fad?  Where can I learn more about these principles? Is it anything different than what I have done as a Black Belt? or a ASQ Certified Quality Engineer?

    0
    #89959

    DaveG
    Participant

    Your potential employer is either (a) a narrow-minded fool or (b) a narrow-minded person of high intelligence, for applying this criterion, because he / she should want someone who can think, not produce a toolbox.  Do a web search for “Shainin”.  Dorian Shainin developed a number of quality engineering tools which allow the user to “listen” to a process and gain profound knowledge.  It is highly intuitive as opposed to statistically based.

    0
    #89960

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Kraig,
    Get hold of some of Keki Bhote’s books there is a bunch of Shanin stuff in there. Component search used to be in Juran’s Handbook.
    Just a thought. Why does this guy care if you know Shanin tools? You should ask. You may have an indication you are about to get mico-managed. If that is aproblem for you – I would think twice about the job.
    Good luck.
     

    0
    #89961

    Kraig Schell
    Participant

    Thank you for the advice!

    0
    #90538

    QA Eng, UK
    Participant

    There is a book:  WORLD CLASS QUALITY:  Using Design of Experiments to Make it Happen.  By Keki R. Bhote and Adi K. Bhote, ISBN 0-8144-0427-8.  Its a good book on the Shainin DOE techniques, and the only one I’ve found on Shainin, which is a lot less mathmatical than Taguchi.  Its based on a more simple 10 step aproach to find and reduce your Red X and therefore easier for the majority of across site staff to use.  I’m not sure of what other quality principles Shainin has been published on.Hope this helps and good luck with the job.

    0
    #90552

    Geoff Jamieson
    Participant

    I can send you the pages from the Six Sigma Handbook by Thomas Pyzdek who discusses Dorian Shainin’s Pre Control method which he developed in the 1950’s. So it is not a new method. You should be able to log onto a web site and find out more information but if you want these pages sent to you via fax please send me your fax number and I will try and get it back to you the same day as received.
    Hope it helps, or at least a start. Let me know..
     

    0
    #90555

    Matt M
    Participant

    Can I also get a copy? I can email you my fax number….please let me know your email address (mine is matthew.moulton@kohler.com).
    Thanks,
    Matt

    0
    #90556

    Kraig A Schell
    Participant

    Thanks for the advice.  I bought a book called, “World Class Quality” by Keki Bhote that deals extensively with the Shainin DOE.  I am still suprised at how little I can find about Dorian Shainin.  His DOE technique does seem easier and less time consuming (so far, I am only half way through the book).  Thanks again for all of the help.

    0
    #90561

    DaveG
    Participant

    I would try Shainin’s website, or past articles of Quality Progress (check ASQ’s web archives).
    As far as how little you found:  pick any topic of wide interest, and it is typically overexposed, and redundantly so;  how many unique analyses can be done?  Perhaps it is a tribute to Shainin that he could not be overhyped and bastardized.  At the end of the day, his techniques are no better or worse than anything else.

    0
    #90565

    Ron
    Member

    I went through the Shainin training duringthe early 90’s. It had some unique approaches to problem solving. The most useful was take a broken product and a good one and find out what is different.
     
    Practical buty not very useful in todays complex product offerings such as Software. Another was the red light green light yellow light approach to inspection. Another rather silly approach to practical manufacturing.
    Don’t waste your time unless you are investigating methodologies that just did not make the cut.
     
    Remember not everyone can understand the complexities of the six sigma methodology so utilize the group knowledge on what works and what does not work.
    Make your own conclusions.

    0
    #90590

    TN Goh
    Member

    A sensible comment, at last.

    0
    #90595

    Kim Niles
    Participant

    Dear Kraig:
    You are on the right track by purchasing “World Class Quality”.  Keki Bohte told me personally during a class I took from him that Dorian Shainin licensed him alone to write about his techniques.  This is another reason why you are having problems finding information.
    Regarding other comments on this thread, that suggest these techniques are out of date, I agree that they go back a few years but I disagree with regard to improving supplier quality and occasional use.  I have been in several situations where we desperately needed to improve supplier quality and the supplier was desperately afraid of using statistics.  In those situations, I found Shainin techniques very helpful.  I have also used the techniques in house on occasion where I wanted to use very simple graphs to explain variation. 
    Good luck with your studies and getting that job you want.
    Sincerely,
    KN –   https://www.isixsigma.com/library/bio/kniles.asp ; http://www.KimNiles.com

    0
    #90598

    Richard Stump
    Member

    Dear Kraig:
    I worked for Rath & Strong in the late 1970s, beginning right after Dorian Shainin left to go on his own.  My R&S mentors for the techniques Dorian modestly named The Shainin Techniques were Tom Woods and John Pollard.  The techniques were developed by several consultants at R&S and Dorian was the genius who put it all together as a marketable group of problem-solving methodologies.
    Once the problem is “scoped out,” the direction is set to use the techniques to fit the problem.  As I have used them, they are extremely effective.  But you should know the basic, individual techniques to make the proper applications.  My first challenge using the techniques was with a foundry going bankrupt because they had lost track of the key activities needed to produce strong sand molds; how to pour metal into molds; and not to pour metal on the floor.  The last work I performed was with a totally automated (i.e. robotic) diesel fuel injector assembly line, looking for a higher first-pass yield.
    The techniques were effecxtive in the past and just as effective a couple of years ago.  Go for it!

    0
    #90601

    Yashwant M Joshi
    Member

    Dear Friend
    There is an excellent book on Shinin( not Shanin) DOE by Prof Keki Bhote (Deciple of Prof Shinin)published in USA.
    Basically Prof Shinin claims that his method of DOE is statistically much more scientific , simple , economical and accurate than any other method of DOE.
    In my opinion this method is best suited for Manufacturing Processes . I don’t know how it can help in Design Process.
    This book explains simple techniques of DOE for Problem solving.
    I strongly recommend reading and practicing.
     

    0
    #90605

    Mikel
    Member

    Ron,
    If ignorance is truely bliss, you must be dancing after your post.
    For starters, tools like MultiVari, Realistic Tolerancing (now Tolerance Parallelagram) and PreControl have always been part of the Six Sigma toolset. Component and Variable Search are very valuable as well. If you were not taught these, you got some crappy SS training. Do I buy the hype of the “Cadilac of DOE tools”? Of course not, but Dorian’s teachings were well intrgrated into Motorola before SS and most of his teachings carried on. His tools should be part of the Memory Jogger toolset.

    0
    #90606

    Ron
    Member

    Stan,
    You obviously stayed up late last night drinking. Your response shows your inept knowledge of anything happening in the 21st Centruy.
     
    I hope you the best in whatever home your have been placed in.
     
     

    0
    #90608

    Mikel
    Member

    Just getting up in Chicago after a full nights rest thank you.
    You don’t know what you are talking about.

    0
    #90610

    Mikel
    Member

    Ron,
    I forgot to tell you that I agree with your statement of Shainin not being right for things like software.
    What you need there is even simpler, like process maps and standardized work, and getting the software folks to recognize they are not the customer.

    0
    #91721

    stephen reed
    Member

    I have used the Keki Bhote ‘World Class Quality’ text as reference in both the 1st and 2nd editions.
    If you get the choice, obtain a copy of the 1st edition. This is an easier read and more concise to what I believe are the Shanin techniques.

    0
    #91724

    Marc Richardson
    Participant

    Shainin techniques were developed decades ago, before the advent of software products like Minitab made the chore of statistical analysis easy. The fact that putting tools like AnOVa and Correlation and Regression in the hands of people with 4 weeks of ”training” doesn’t seem to be alarming anyone. That aside, Shainin tools were developed in the paper and pencil era. If you prefer to rely on a two trial evaluation of the repeatability of your measurement system using an X-Y graph, I say more power to you. I will stick with using the Average & Range method and AnOVa.
    Caveat Emptor,
    Marc Richardson
    Sr. Q.A. Eng.
     

    0
    #91726

    Statman
    Member

    Marc,
    I fully agree.  I challange anyone to give me a reason that I would need to employ Shainin techniques when I have access to solid statistical analysis methods.
    Statman

    0
    #91730

    Cone
    Participant

    You are not comprehending the scope or DOEs.  Firstly, any DOE experiment, whether it is Taguchi, or traditional, takes time to understand, insofar as its effect.  Secondly, Red X, which Motorola latched onto 18 years ago saw the distinct advantage over the rigors or simple stat analysis.  GM, where I have a colleague and friend working, employed Shainin in one division and the results over Taguchi are astounding.  They have garnered every award and attainable kudo there is from up top over at GM.  The more mathematically rigorous methods do work, however, why not simplify if the results are equal or better?  There is no real question as to which method is superior, when spanning all business types and processes.

    0
    #91731

    Cone
    Participant

    You are keeping up with things obviously.  Back in the early 90’s—which is well past the pencil and paper ERA— Red X was being incorporated within the confines of the computer arena, as it is being done today, especially over at Motorola and GM.  Do not be swayed by the statisticians who know only one method of Shainin.  That is the beauty of Shainin—it “incorporates” extremely well into all environments of study.  It is just its simplicity that keeps it above most methods out there—ie, Taguchi, etc.  

    0
    #91735

    Statman
    Member

    Who said anything about Taguchi methods? Don’t get me started on that topic. 
     
    What you have told me is where Shainin methods have been applied but you have not answered my challenge so I will state it again,
     
    Give me a reason that I would need to employ Shainin techniques when I have access to (and skills in) solid statistical analysis methods
     
    You say “Motorola latched onto 18 years ago saw the distinct advantage over the rigors or simple stat analysis”.  Should I use it because Motorola and GM used it? What distinct advantages?  What do you mean by simple stat analysis? Be more specific.
     
    Statman

    0
    #91737

    Ron
    Member

    It is surprising how many times this topic comes up only to be resolved to : Yeah it had some interesting things but it never caught on..
     
    Get over it you Shainin weenies…

    0
    #91744

    Mikel
    Member

    To say that Motorola latched on to Red X is at best misleading and simple is not true.

    0
    #91752

    Mikel
    Member

    You need to stop saying these things about Motorola – they are not true.

    0
    #91756

    Maul
    Participant

    Stan,
    Shainin guards their methodology and techniques with caution.  They are consultants and this is how they make their money.  If you are open minded the Shainin techniques are useable and geared toward ease of use for the average shop operator.  It is like forensic science for the shop floor.  Do not discount some of Shainin ideas.  Keep an open mind. I am an avid Six Sigma guru and degreed statistician, though some of Shainin’s origins can be traced to statistical techniques already named (Tukey’s run test, but Shainin’s B vs C), they are presented in a simplistic nonengineering/statistician jargon which is beneficial to some audiences.
     As far as an employer requesting Shainin is a must on your employment AND you want to work there, try negociating.  Ask them for a trip to Michigan for Shainin’s Apprentice and Journeyman training.  If they won’t pay for this education, then you know this compnay or this specific manager is not worth YOUR time.  Keep looking. 

    0
    #140605

    Scott
    Member

    I am looking for a Quality Engineer with Shainin experience.  It is a temporary assignment in Louisianna.  Does this interest anyone?

    0
    #140606

    Benito Camelo
    Participant

    Can you define temporary. Thanks.

    0
    #140608

    Heebeegeebee BB
    Participant

    You mean, “Louisiana”???
    Let’s see, Criminally neglectful Governor, Mayor(New Orleans), Police force(New Orleans), not to mention the “me-too, gimme-gimme” mentality…
    ah….NO.

    0
    #156904

    Christian
    Participant

    I’m not new to this site but I’m new to this forum and I am astonished at the level of arrogance that some of you have toward those who are trained in Red X strategies.  We are not all that different.  We strive to be the best problem solvers in the world, we strive to save our companies money.  We are the same, we just approach problem solving a little differently.  I use Red X you may use DMAIC, DFSS or DoE’s at the end of the day we solve the problem, we report out and move on the to the next issue.

    0
    #156909

    Mikel
    Member

    I too am trained in Shainin methods (1983 so I’m no virgin here). I am also a practioner of Six Sigma and Lean.
    I believe Shainin’s tools are good and believe they should still be trained in a team environment. I believe Multi Vari, Realistic Tolerancing (you may know it as Tolerance Parallelagram), Component and Variable Search, and PreControl are all useful tools and I include them in BB training (since 1995).
    BUT, a person that knows both tool set knows that the Six Sigma toolset can get after more complex problems. How often to do you actually encounter more complex problems? Depends on the organization.
    Shainin’s approach to gauge capibility is outdated and just plain stupid.

    0
    #156913

    Christian
    Participant

    I think that you just hit it on the head.  Why use six sigma if you don’t need to?  Red X is geared for the more simplistic problems.  Shainin can’t handle multiple interactions as well as six sigma, but it can out duel six sigma in speed to closure for simple problems.  The whole goal as you know is using the y to x strategy by converging on the main x that effects the y. Red X has been refined since 1983. I’m not saying that RedX is the best tool to use, but it is effective in our industry in quickly finding the families of variation in our process with just using a BOB/WOW sample. The simplistic approach makes problem solving available for the average production manager.  The key to this is the simple 9 step approach:
    1. Does the RedX live in the parts or the assembly?
    2. Which family offers the most leverage with the least effort?
    3. Does everything needed to find the RedX live in this family?
    4. What are the observed physical/geometric peculiarities that may assist along the way?
    5. Which family has the larges source of variation?
    6. What side contains most or all the BOBs?
    7. What are the environment conditions the component is under?
    8. Is the fracture partial or total?
    9. Is the void progressive or does it happen all of a sudden?
    How progressive are the voids on the 5 previous parts?
    How progressive are the voids on the 5 subsequent parts?
    Tools such as group or paired comparisons quickly get you down to a managable few possibilities.
     
    As you know its all about splitting the dictionary by asking simple questions and observation.  You can easily isolate and leverage differences.  If you end up with 4 factors, you either didn’t do a good enough job in splitting the dictionary or you must use a different tool to find the answer such as six sigma. 
     

    0
    #156916

    Mikel
    Member

    I agree with much of what you say, but you sound like a Shainin salesman.
    Your statement of the tools being refined since 1983 – nonsense. Name one refinement other than the obvious of providing software. I have a current Shanin Master training manual and there is nothing new except a few names have changed. In defense of Shanin, the same thing goes on in the Six Sigma world – just look to see what Michael George is writing about – spinning the obvious and selling it as new.
    I disagree about the BOB/WOW thing as well – especially in your industry. If we did the PPAP’s and got the capability and controls that we pretend to, hardly any of this would be necessary. Just look at TPS – yea Lean is nice but having the discipline to know and qualify and then run your processes with that knowledge – that blows Shanin and SS away.

    0
    #156918

    BC
    Participant

    If I may sprinkle a little humor here.
    We are a company that fully embraces Shainin (Lean and 6s too).
    We are also a company that proudly advertises “Wow” products.

    0
    #156951

    Christian
    Participant

    BC, Wow products huh, what may that be?
     
    Also, since you use both Shainin and 6sigma, do you use either of them for specific problems?  We are just rolling out DMAIC to the Black Belt Coordinators at the plants to supplement our Shainin teachings.

    0
    #156953

    Christian
    Participant

    No!  I’m not a Shainin Salesman. I have zero benefit of preaching their teachings.  I find that their buisiness practices and isolationist attitudes create a stigma of their teachings and further alienates the professionals that learn and use their tools.  They are brilliant in that respect as they pigion hole us into our positions with little hope of branching out as we will not gain acceptance with the other teachings. With that said.  As you know what you said about doing it right, up front on the engineering side is right on.  But that is perfect utopia and it doesn’t exist right now. We have to have good reactive problem solvers until our DFSS is robust.

    0
    #156954

    Christian
    Participant

    ooops forgot to add: You asked to name one refinement to the shainin teachings, as you know that there were 3 main types of Green Y’s; Event (Energy), Defect (Scratch, Blemish), Feature (Daimeter). There is a 4th one which is Property (durometer of part).  Each Green Y has some specific tools that are used to further leverage variation.

    0
    #156959

    BC
    Participant

    Christian,
    Obviously our Marketing people aren’t Shainin-trained :-)  We’re an automotive supplier trying to punch our way out of the commodity bag, so to speak. 
    We use Shainin mostly for the must-be-fixed-now manufacturing quality problems with well-defined Y’s, and Six Sigma mostly for transactional and non-quality operations improvements.  Sometimes the boundary lines are kinda fuzzy but the Shainin and 6s people still hang out in different camps.  That’s a shame, IMO.  They should all be part of a common toolset.
    BC

    0
    #156967

    Mario W
    Participant

    What nonesense!

    0
    #156970

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,
    Could you be more specific? What do you think is nonsense?

    0
    #156977

    Fed Up Engineer
    Participant

    DFSS-I have yet to see one of these projects ever succeed in real world applications. Sure they get to market, but was the time and effort worth it. When solid engineering could have completed the project in half the time at half the expense and with many times better results. Define “robust” please!

    0
    #156978

    Christian
    Participant

    BC,
    We are begginning to role out transactional here with the Shainin RedX Masters being the first to go through.  I am one of them, so that will eliminate the dual camps. You are right on with the Shainin tools are great for quick hits with good discriptions of your Green Y.  I hope to become even more dangerous as I go through the transactional process. 
    Cheers

    0
    #156979

    Christian
    Participant

    Fed Up,
    I think your preaching to the chior. Better up front engineering is the dream for the masses.  If all manufactures had it, we would be out of jobs.

    0
    #157017

    Mario W
    Participant

    Shainin’s isoplot has solved many measurement problems as you well know. Your claim it is stupid to use it gives you no credit, epscially when most semicondcutor measurement equipment is either automatic or semi-automatic. Not to mention your stupid sexist comment. (What is it about some Six Sigma consultants?)As you well know, Shainin proposed labelling each sample and measuring them twice, on two separate occasions, and then correlating the two measurements. What’s stupid about that?

    0
    #157021

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,First, calling you honey isn’t sexist. If your name were Maria, it
    would be sexist.IsoPlot? Are we still teaching the meatball and sausage analysis?
    Enough said. IsoPlot is a good way to expalin a problem, but not to
    analyze it.It’s kind of like the now four categories of Green Y’s. How about
    teaching people to know what is important? Call them Green Y’s?
    How stupid.Do I respect what Dorian put together? Absolutely. Do I respect the
    zombies that Shanin training turns out. Absolutely not. Learn to
    think.

    0
    #157022

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    Stan doesn’t necessarily need my input BUT I can tell you that as part of my development as MBB, he insisted on having me and the other MBB’s in training receive Shainin training. 
    I am ever grateful to have received this very useful training even in light of the age of computers.  Stan is a supporter of Shainin’s principles….believe me.

    0
    #157035

    Mario W
    Participant

    I know Stan’s position on some of Shainin’s techniques. My argument is with his calling the Isoplot stupid. According to his last post, apparently it’s stupid because he says so – how persuasive!Do you think he knows what assumptions have to be satisfied before he can use ANOVA? Perhaps he can explain how those assumptions are satisfied in the use of Gage R&R!Do you think this guy can think – or is he just another Six Sigma regurgitating machine!

    0
    #157037

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,
    If you think you see me regurigitating SS dogma, you need to learn to read.
    Shainin’s techniques are good, but to estimate one aspect of gauging issues visually is crazy if you have better analytical techniques. You can compare a measurement device to itself – repeatibility or one device to another – reproducibility but you can’t do both at the same time.
    There are just better ways to do it, I can look at repeatibility and reproducibility and look at interactions of 2 or more systems. Why would I resort to this visual estiation to analyze? I do use the IsoPlot visual as a good way to explain what the better analytical method tells me.

    0
    #157040

    Mario W
    Participant

    You know as well as I do Motorola had software to plot and calculate R-squared. The software is still in use in two waferfabs over here. Who do you think you’re kidding? Why bother with reproducablity on an automatic system? What a waste of time.Where did you work in Motorola – Seguin? Cheez, that would explain a lot .. no wonder you’re in the habit of calling men honey!

    0
    #157045

    Christian
    Participant

    Stan,
    You bring up great points and I’m sure you have tons of experience to share with the group, however you destroy all of that with your condescending remarks and in your face rebuttals. Your remarks and short snippets; such as “Honey”, Zombie”, “Garbage Men” are not appreciated at all.  Hey I come to the forum to learn not fight for my relevancy. If its your opionion that I’m doing or using tools that you would not use, give me some alternatives, some constructive criticism. As far as isoplots, thats the only tool I know to use when validating my measurement system.  I’ve completed 23 projects and half of them I have used an isoplot to establish that I have an effective measurement system. Is there another way? If so is it just as quick?

    0
    #157046

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,Having software added to a mediocre tool – WOW!Last time I checked, Motorola doesn’t have any wafer fabs. Before
    they got rid of them, they were seen as a drain on the corporation
    and also had never really fully adopted the Motorola culture – that
    is how we have someone argueing for Shainin tools when the rest
    of the organization progressed to substitue better methods, where
    appropriate, over twenty years ago. Automated equipment? Last time I checked, there were many
    instances of automated equipment being replicated to do the same
    tests – reproducibility is absolutely necessary.No, not from Seguin.

    0
    #157047

    Mikel
    Member

    If you have done 23 projects and only established that you have an
    effective measurement system, I’ll bet you have left money on the
    table. Odds are against finding them effective that often.Yes there are better methods that are quicker and provide better
    guidance on how to resolve measurement issues. Look at
    Measurement System Analysis – there is a good reference
    published by AIAG. I’ll send you a copy if you give me a mailing
    address. Don’t post it on here, email it to me @
    StanMikel@aol.com.Another good reference is Evaluating the Measurement Process by
    Wheeler and Lyday, ISBN 094532006X.As far as your critique of my style, as Popeye says, “I am what I
    am”. Look at your posting touting the superiority of Shainin when
    all you know is Shainin. I’ll engage in a rational conversation if you will.

    0
    #157049

    Christian
    Participant

    If I came across that way, I apoligize.  I’ll take you up on your offer.

    0
    #157053

    Fed Up Engineer
    Participant

    Mario
    He calls you Honey because he knows it bothers you. And second because your an idiot if you think charting reproducibility of an automatic system is a waste of time.
     

    0
    #157070

    Mario W
    Participant

    Stanley:I’ll call you that now that you’ve come out of the closet and we can recognise your more sensitive side.What a deceiver – you’ve know about the existence of Motorla’s Isoplot software and it’s usefulness all along, but it seems you’ll do and say anything to win an argument. How typical!Do you by any chance do you mean there no Motorola production waferfabs?!!!!Does that mean there is no R&D? (Think “world” not USA!)If you now claim MSA is better than an Isoplot I would agree with you. However, an Isoplot is much better than Gage R&R.

    0
    #157071

    Mario W
    Participant

    Let’s see .. we study the repeatability of twenty or so automatic measurement systems and find all of them meet the 10% rule. Gee, we’ve now got to go and use ANOVA on dependent samples to find out how much variation is contributed by operators.Whose the idiot?Go write another Six Sigma report flunky.

    0
    #157073

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,
    It’s not operators, it’s reproducibility of the twenty or so automatic machines. It does not make any difference whether it is 20 operators or twenty machines – they must agree.
    Go ask the folks who operate the machines if there are machines that will pass what other machines fail. Just because they are automatic does not mean squat.
    Who is (not whose) the idiot? You.

    0
    #157079

    Fed Up Engineer
    Participant

    Mario Sweetie
    How do you know when the reproducibility ends or becomes erratic?
    20 machines cannot all reproduce the same and therefore have a range within themselves and as a whole. You should really read up on Lean automation principles and statistical charting of these processes.
     

    0
    #157105

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Mario W,
    I spent time in Seguin. What seems to be your particular problem with Seguin? The Little Plant on the Prarie produced a good ROI for Motorola. Seguin made Schoenburgers list (Japanese Manufacturing Techniques) way before it became avant-garde to think you had to become a zelot for some approach to improvement.
    As far as reproducibility on automated testers. What is your issue there? If I have multiple automated testers, testing the same product it would be really nice to know that they all ran the same (Stan eluded to this several posts ago – guaranteed if you don’t check them your supervisors know which machine to run the defects at month end). That is why we substitute the multiple machines in place of multiple operators and the reprucibility number tells us how well the machines agree with each other.

    0
    #157120

    Mario W
    Participant

    Mike:I have no problem with Saguin – other than it smells and has far too many nodding donkeys.I have no problem with you either, or with Stan, or the other yo-yo.As for reproduceablity – I’ve always used that term in the context of operators. If you or someone else has taken a different approach and now call it equipment ‘matching’ reproduceability, I have no problem with that either. But why didn’t Stan make that point instead of called the Isoplot method stupid?What I do find suprising is that anyone, who is associated with your organisation, would seek to deny the use of the Isoplot within Motorola. Why would they do that … unless they have a selfish motives.Why would someone try to deny the existence of the Isoplot software widely used in Phoenix, Austin, East Kilbride, Toulouse, etc.What is an Isoplot – it’s just a plot of one dependent variable against another and calculate a correlation coefficient and I don’t know of anyone who has plotted one by hand for the past twenty years! Why is it stupid to study the correlation of one piece of equipment against another.More seriously, what happens when one of your client’s employees asks these two yo-yo’s a simple question? Are they going to be called honey, stupid, a zombie, etc. Or do they only have bravado in anonymity?I find it strange that a person of your calibre would associate yourself or try to defend such ignorant people.I’m out of here.

    0
    #157140

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,First of all, you seem to confuse Motorola Semiconductor with the
    larger corporation. They are not one in the same. Semiconductor,
    with the exception of 52nd St which was influenced by Mario, was
    always seen as lagging in methods and not really a place to learn
    about improvement. Go look at the internal audits. Cellular had
    similar issues except the root cause was different. Cellular was
    arrogant, semiconductor beleived they were different and their
    processes were much more difficult.I called IsoPlot stupid as an analysis method because it is. You can
    only compare two things at a time and only do repeatibility or
    reproducibility but not both at the same time. Most IsoPlot
    devotees cannot figure out that reproducibility is about multiples
    of systems even when it is multiple equipment instead of multiple
    operators. Duh.Your reference to the software that ALL of Motorola uses is
    incorrect. I doubt that you will find that software outside of
    Semiconductor and it was not used wherever Mario influenced.The software’s correlation analysis is flawed as well. This is a point
    I have tried to make to the Shainin cult leaders at least three times
    over the years. They did not listen I believe because they did not
    have the knowledge that Dorian brought to the table.What is flawed? Most (not all) comparisons are made to the exact
    same specs and test limits. With that constraint, we are not
    interested in just a good coefficient, we are interested in the
    deviation from the expected regression line. What is the expected
    regression line? Easy – y intercept of 0 and a slope of 45. Make the
    comparison to the expected line, then IsoPlots only shortcoming is
    that most of our systems need to compare more than 2 things at a
    time.What happens when one of my clients employees get called honey,
    stupid, a zombie, etc? Who knows? Never happened. I have the
    advantage in a face to face situation to call someone’s bluff when
    they start with nonsense like the Shaininites spout. It gets worked
    out easily when it becomes obvious there is no depth to a Shainin
    Master. Not so easy with a Taguchi devotee, they will just listen and learn
    and continue to smoke everyone around them.

    0
    #157151

    BC
    Participant

    Van Belle has a nice, concise way to quantify the “agreement” of two measurement methods.  The same kind of data you’d get in an Isoplot. It breaks down into three components:  precision (correlation), bias, and scale.  We’ve used it to compare, say, a theoretical estimate with a physical measurement.
    Here’s the reference:  http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Rules-Thumb-Probability-Statistics/dp/0471402273/ref=sr_1_7/103-5804524-8659828?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181240851&sr=8-7

    0
    #157152

    CT
    Participant

    BC
    Assuming data is normal?

    0
    #157153

    BC
    Participant

    Bivariate normal, to be precise.

    0
    #157168

    Mario W
    Participant

    Stanley-pansy:What utter nonesense .. Your implication that everyone in Motorola lagged 52nd street is utter BS. What sheer arrogance and ignorance! No wonder you have to pop so many pills!!!No wonder you spend most of your time trying to put other people down with your one word answers and always arguing from an ever shifting position. Do you remember the NIT project?I now know who you are. You were a deceiver then and you are a deceiver now.You say you are what you are and you can’t change -I can vouch for that! There has been no improvment in your character!

    0
    #157172

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,Let’s try this one more time.Motorola semiconductor is not the whole corporation. In fact, if you
    look at the capital drain and low profit contribution, they were an
    insignificant piece.I didn’t say 52nd St was better, I did say they were more in line with
    what the corporation was doing. Most of the corporation had ADT
    as their primary tool set by 85 or 86.I laid out why IsoPlot is an inadequate tool. Why did you choose to
    ignore that?

    0
    #157176

    Mario W
    Participant

    Stanley-pansy,I have no problem with the statement the Isoplot is an inadequate tool, that is quite different concept to saying its use is stupid. I don’t believe its use is stupid because it solved a good many problems at Motorola, as you well know!!!!Also, believe your original statement is like saying the use of linear regression is stupid when there is multiple regression. Duh! The use of linear regression is appropriate if it solves a problem or improves a process.You and I both know that the use of correlation is not limited to two variables and it is possible to study any number of variables using DOE, which is the approach taken by Taguchi in his dynamic design.BTW are you now claiming the Isoplot was not taught as part of Advanced Diagnostic Tools, which were based on Shainin Techniques? So Motorola took everything he had to offer except the Isoplot. What nonsense!(I have no connection with the Shainin organisation and I’m not seeking to promote that organisation. What I object to is some consultants on this site lording over others and trying to shoot them down with one-liners and insults.)

    0
    #157177

    Craig
    Participant

    BC,
    Could you explain what is meant by bivariate normal? Are you talking about two variables, each of which are normal? If not, does this imply something about joint probability distributions or something like that?
    Thanks!

    0
    #157178

    BC
    Participant

    hacl,
    It follows the bivariate normal distribution,
    (1/2*pi*sqrt(1-r^2))exp{(x^2-2rxy+y^2)/(2*(1-r^2))}
    Hope I got the brackets right!  Basically, a normal distribution with 2 variables x and y, with correlation r between them.  The scatter would look something like you’d see in an Isoplot.  The marginal distributions would be normal, as your post implies, but there would be correlation if you plot them against each other.
    We’re experimenting with using van Belle’s formula.  It breaks down the measurement agreement into three components: bias (difference in means), scale (difference in variance), and precision (1 minus the correlation coeff).  Note, van Belle’s formula only looks at agreement between two measures of each object, e.g. two operators or two gages or two of whatever.  There’s no breakdown into both repeatability and reproducibility.
    We’re using the formula to compare values from a model (e.g. a computer analysis) to a physical, measured value.  No doubt, one could argue that the computer-generated values violate the assumption of “random” and the statistical inferences are therefore suspect, but we’re trying to solve engineering problems, not win math awards.  The formula seems to gives us the breakdown of components in the measurement error that we need, so that alone is useful to us.
    I’m open to anyone out there who has a better idea.
    Regards,
    BC

    0
    #157179

    Mikel
    Member

    You need to learn to read.
    ADT and Shainin are one in the same and IsoPlot, realistic tolerancing, MultiVari, Component and Variable Search, … were taught.
    IsoPlot is a stupid analytical method.

    0
    #157186

    Mario W
    Participant

    I’ll make this my last post on the subject. You can have the last word.Let me get this straight:- Motorola won the Malcolm Baldrdige Award in 1988 using training methods (ADT) which you readily admit were the same as Shainin’s.- The training material included the use of the Isoplot which you consider stupid- But Motorola achieved considerable sucess using these materials.- After Mikel Harry changed the Shainin Techniques to ‘more advanced methods (tools)’ Motorola began to decline- You dislike Mikel Harry so much you use his name in your on-line email address- Your website claims yourself an inventor of SSI’m not going to call you stupid, an idiot, a zombie, or honey. I’ll let others decide how best to describe your approach to this forum. For myself I think you could be so much more than what you appear to be after reading some of your posts!

    0
    #157188

    Mario W
    Participant

    I’ll make this my last post on the subject. You can have the last word.Let me get this straight:- Motorola won the Malcolm Baldrdige Award in 1988 using training methods (ADT) which you readily admit were the same as Shainin’s.- The training material included the use of the Isoplot which you consider stupid- But Motorola achieved considerable sucess using these materials.- After Mikel Harry changed the Shainin Techniques to ‘more advanced methods (tools)’ Motorola began to decline- You dislike Mikel Harry so much you use his name in your on-line email address- Your website claims yourself an inventor of SSI’m not going to call you stupid, an idiot, a zombie, or honey. I’ll let others decide how best to describe your approach to this forum. For myself I think you could be so much more than what you appear to be after reading some of your posts!

    0
    #157187

    Mario W
    Participant

    I’ll make this my last post on the subject. You can have the last word.Let me get this straight:- Motorola won the Malcolm Baldrdige Award in 1988 using training methods (ADT) which you readily admit were the same as Shainin’s.- The training material included the use of the Isoplot which you consider stupid- But Motorola achieved considerable sucess using these materials.- After Mikel Harry changed the Shainin Techniques to ‘more advanced methods (tools)’ Motorola began to decline- You dislike Mikel Harry so much you use his name in your on-line email address- Your website claims yourself an inventor of SSI’m not going to call you stupid, an idiot, a zombie, or honey. I’ll let others decide how best to describe your approach to this forum. For myself I think you could be so much more than what you appear to be after reading some of your posts!

    0
    #157220

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Mario W,
    The plant doesn’t smell but it is unfortunately located in the middle of some farm land so when it gets fertilized there is a distinct oder in the air. The chicken processing plant on the other side of I-10 probably doesn”t help much either.
    In terms of the R&R. If you are running automated test equipment that is not influenced by the operator then reproducibility doesn’t make sense in terms of the operators. If you use multiple machines to test the same product then you need reproducibility between machines. You simply use the different machines in the same way you would different operators and the reproducibility number will represent the agreement between machines rather than operators.
    As far as Shanin stuff I have always liked the component search methodology and use it when appropriate.
    Regards

    0
    #157221

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    Just as a point of clarification, your reference to Mario in the first paragraph is to Mario Perez Wilson not to Mario W since they are two different people?
    Mario Perez Wilson’s influence went far beyond the 52nd Street plant for Semiconductor.
    Regards

    0
    #157224

    Mario W
    Participant

    Agreed ..Respectfully,
    Mario

    0
    #157225

    Mario W
    Participant

    Correct!

    0
    #157248

    Mikel
    Member

    Mario honey,To your points — Motorola was requiring 40 hours of training for all employees
    since 1983. ADT was just one of over 30 courses available in the
    SPC series from MTEC. The part of Moto I was with gave no
    emphasis to ADT after 1984.- The use of GR&R came into Motorola at least by 1986 and we
    found MSA issues everywhere we looked and improved dramatically
    by finally straightening out our SYSTEMS.- Mikel Harry did not change anything, he was one of many who
    advocated other tools. John Ramberg, Tom Barker, Ed Heard, Skip
    Weed, and many others contributed to the body of knowledge.
    Mikel Harry had almost zero impact inside of Motorola. He certainly
    did not influence Semiconductor. You may find it intriguing that Dr.
    Harry advocated neither IsoPlot or MSA in his description of MAIC.
    He saw looking at the measurement system as a tiny consideration
    before doing a DOE only.- Yes, I have an email address with Mikel as part of it – it happens
    to be a family name (easy to prove).- I have no website and I have never claimed to be an inventor of
    SS. I claim quite the opposite. SS was the joint contribution of a lot
    of smart people, not the least of which was Bob Galvin who allowed
    this whole thing to happen. And thank you for the vote of confidence that I could be more.Now, what about the specific issues I explained to support my
    assertion that IsoPlot is stupid?

    0
    #157249

    Rodriguez
    Member

    Stan:Can you settle a bet for us?Some people in this office don’t believe you have both Mikel and Harry in a family name?For myself I think you call this guy honey because you’re really the Perez guy who doesn’t like Harry cause he got the glory and you got the story!!!Adios

    0
    #157250

    Mikel
    Member

    Only Mikel, no Harry.

    0
    #157254

    Christian
    Participant

    I think I was the Shainin Zombie.  In any event the Shainin techniques have served me well in my fast paced environment.  Yes the component search, I think is the most valuable tool in the RedX arsenal. 
    Cheers Everyone

    0
    #157255

    Keister
    Participant

    Stan,Some of us know who were on the committee. You left two people off. One was a woman and the other was Mario Perez-Wilson.From the tone of your posts I can understand why you left the woman out, but did you make a mistake with the other name by not including yourself in the list :-)Bernhardt

    0
    #157260

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Ronaldo,
    Stan answered your fiest question accurately.
    Second question – Mario Perez-Wilson and Stan are two different people. I know them both and they know each other from the 80’s. Mario stopped posting on the Discussion Forum a couple years ago because he did not want to get involved in strings like this that he felt were confrontational and added no value to the Six Sigma business. Mario runs a very nice consulting business that doesn’t require claims about what he did or did not do. His customers recomend him and that keeps him as busy as he chooses to be.
    Saludos

    0
    #157261

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Christian,
    If it works for you that is great keep doing it because the people that run your business in all probability only care about the results. If you deliver that you are fine. I hope you have more bandwidth incase you find that problem where it doesn’t work. How about that situation where there may be a more efficient way?
    I have put this analogy up before but I still like it. There is a movie called “Tin Cup” where Kevin Costner is a golfer and gets into a situation where he breaks all his clubs except his 7 iron. Still shoots a good round and qualifies for a tournament. He is bragging about his accomplishment later and Don Johnson (another golfer) listens to his bragging and then asks him “why?” When I see people who are sworn to one guru, one tool, one methodology, etc it makes no sense. Essentially they have broken all their clubs except one. Management doesn’t hire a person because they only run Taguchi experiments or are a devout Shaninite. They buy results. when you accept a job you should be commiting to deliver results not prove that some guru, methodology, etc it is light and the way and you will never get to heaven with out some stamp on your butt.
    Just my opinion.
    Good luck

    0
    #157269

    Christian
    Participant

    Mike,
    Very well put!   I truely understand your analogy.  During my short time reading posts in this forum, I now understand the need to expand my knoweledge.  There is so much more out there to learn and experience.  My company has just rolled out six sigma training for manufacturing and I’m going to take full advantage of it in the next few months.  I already have 2 projects that I’m developing charters for.
    I’m very impressed with the level of knoweledge that all you possess.  I hope to gain from your experiences  and ask for your help as I begin my journey down the SS road.  I defenitly will use your analogy as I talk and coach my candidates as they transition from Shainin to Six Sigma.
    Thanks

    0
    #157270

    CT
    Participant

    I can’t believe this thread is still going. If it works use it. Shanin or Six Sigma, Isoplots, or annova’s, if you can get the end results that satisfy the customer, who cares. Unfortuanetly we have been brained washed by some organizations that Six Sigma or Shanin is the only methodology and which ever one your not using sucks. I have absolutely no Shanin experience at all, do I think its a bad way to do things, NO, I have just not been involved in that culture. As for Mario and Stan, Its nice to see that some people still have passion about what they do, even if its a little immature at times. So how bout lets all agree to disagree and move on to what this Forum is all about.
    CT

    0
    #157272

    Rodriguez
    Member

    Was that about two years ago when there were several posts by a student of Mario telling us how great he was and what a great contribuion he made to Motorola !!!! :-)Adeus

    0
    #157281

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Christian,
    I hope it works for you.
    The real emotional high for this whole thing is fixing problems especially if they are chronic problems. There was an earlier comment about Americans not learning from anyone else. We have deployed in 18 countries other than the US. We learn stuff everwhere we go. That is the fun of doing this.
    Best of luck in your new venture. If I can help you in any way please contact me at mike.carnell@CSintlinc.com.
    Good luck

    0
    #157282

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    ronaldo,
    You will find that when Mario’s name comes up there will always be someone willing to step up for him. I worked with him for about 1.5 years and have nothing but respect for him and his talents. Like I said he has built a very nice consulting business and doesn’t depend on advertisement to maintain that business. He survives very well on satisfied customer speaking to other customers – what a concept.
    Mario did make a significan contribution to the FMU – 139 bonb fuse program at Government Electronics (the only program to win the Motorola CEO Quality Award twice and the Navy Quality Award). He drove a world wide deployment throughout Semiconductor so the answer is he did have a significant impact on Motorola.
    Saludos

    0
    #157297

    Rodriguez
    Member

    Mike:Of all the people who visit this forum I didn’t think you’d miss the point.No one doubts the contributions of Mario – or any other Motorolan at the time – including Mikel Harry and others who worked with Motorola, such as Juran, Shainin, and many others.That was not the point of my post.My point is if you seach for Mario’s name on this forum, you won’t find it. If he was here as you claim, why are his contributions missing?Therefore, we can only conclude he used a nom de plume. The question is why. We can only assume it was to call Mikel Harry, Shainin, and others who ask questions fools, idiots, and zombies.Just the opinion of someone who has been insulted by Stan a number of times over the years.

    0
    #157300

    clb1
    Participant
    #157302

    Mikel
    Member

    Ronaldo,
    Yes it is a nom de plume, as are most names on this and any other forum. Mike Carnell is one of the few who post under their own complete name. Why? Answer the question yourself, you don’t use your complete name assuming Ronaldo is part of your given name.
    I don’t post under any name to call anyone fools, idiots, or zombies. You may want to check, but I have only ever spoken with respect about Dorian and I’ve never called Mikel a fool, idiot, or zombie. I have said he is deceitful and takes credit for the work of others, because it’s true. I’ve called the whole 1.5 sigma proof smoke and mirrors because it is. I’ve made fun of his books because, with the exception of the one written prmarily by Schroeder, they are exercises to either have an ISBN # to sell as intellectual property (the white and green cartoon books) or intentionally meant to confuse.
    I don’t recall insulting you directly, can you refresh my memory since you made the claim?

    0
    #157340

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,Please excuse the interuption. It is the first time I accessed the web from the Blackberry. Just checking it out. To much trouble to do frequently.Regards

    0
    #157379

    Mikel
    Member

    Blackberry! You should have held out for the iPhone – arriving June 29.iSixSigma by Blackberry is a pain because it takes soooooo long to
    load all of the ads and mine at least will reverse the colors if I get
    impatient and scroll down anyway.

    0
    #157386

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    I can’t imagine you getting impatient. I have a similar issue with mine – it scrolls down a portion of the page and then goes back to the top. This basicly a formula for some type of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or something similar. As much as I have never really appreciated technology this is the only thing I have found that turns Houston traffic jams into productive time but I haven’t hit the point where I will type and drive yet.
    The iPhone looks good but if it has the same poor reliability that I get from the iPod I will have to wait a few years until they figure out we want it to work as well as look good.
    Regards

    0
    #157387

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    ronaldo,
    I hope the links from clb1 have satisfied you that Mario has published under his full name. If you read Mario’s book “Six Sigma” you will find he does a discussion concerning the 1.5 sigma shift and how he feels about it. Pretty straight forward and not under a nom de plume.
    It is a pretty big jump to go from using a nom de plume to a the assumption that it is done for the purpose of calling Mikel, Shanin and others who ask questions fools, idiots and zombies. Actually I have used the term tool zombie on several occasions myself and I publish under my own name.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #157389

    Mikel
    Member

    I’ll let you know.
    The 29th is a big day –
    – 7:30 tee time at Eagle Pines
    – A long wait at the new AT&T’s local store to pick up my iPhone
    – Ratatouille
    – Fireworks and dinner at California Grill

    0
    #157391

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    Sounds exciting. We watch the fireworks over the Kemah Boardwalk from the back dock at the house on Thursday and Friday evenings.
    Not sure about that Ratatouille. We were in Botswana last month and were offered a local delicasie called aerials. Turns out they are dried rats cooked over a fire. By the time they are done they resemble an aerial. I had to pass.
    Regards

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 130 total)

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