iSixSigma

Six Sigma vs. Deming Methods

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Six Sigma vs. Deming Methods

Viewing 82 posts - 101 through 182 (of 182 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #138195

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    EdG,
    I think so. It was when all you guys (gender neutral) showed up.
    Regards

    0
    #138196

    Darth
    Participant

    You smoked plenty but it wasn’t tires…..Yo man look at those colors and where are the chips????

    0
    #138197

    Darth
    Participant

    Mike, I think Ed is a metro kind of guy.  He says he likes to work with guys in uniforms.  Not sure what that means.

    0
    #138198

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Darth,
    Mine is.
    Happy Birthday.
    Regards

    0
    #138199

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Darth,
    Uncle Sam fixed that emphatuation for me about 30 years ago.
    Regards

    0
    #138200

    Darth
    Participant

    Thanks Mike.  Doesn’t Stan have a Ford he keeps in the barn?  Guess it must have been the company car from the old days.

    0
    #138201

    Darth
    Participant

    Now I remember.  He was the Uncle who always wanted you to sit on his lap, right?  Now this thread is going downhill.  Won’t be long before we get the inevitable “this thread has been discontinued”.

    0
    #138202

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Darth,
    I didn’t inhale.
    If you can remember the sixties you did not live the sixties.
    Regards

    0
    #138203

    GomezAdams
    Participant

    Naah,
    She fell in love with the whole “Northern Exposure” thing.
    She lives on the island of Sitka.
    Its approx. 60 miles long,with 10 cummulative miles of roads.
    She can walk to work and anywhere she wants.
    She would rather pay Sallie Mae back than purchase a vehicle.
    I’m not sure that I can say that I have survived. Need my cranial enema every now and then.
    Peace. Have a nice weekend.

    0
    #138204

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Last I saw it was a Nanigator and a Mustang. The redeaming part was ithere was a FLSTS.

    0
    #138205

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Right into the gutter!

    0
    #138206

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    I have a friend whose son is a sherrif in Point Barrow. He said they can’t shut the car off all winter (?) I am tropical by nature – not my gig.
    Have a great weekend as well.

    0
    #138207

    GomezAdams
    Participant

    Darth,
    Happy Birthday,Happy Birthday!
    People (Julio) dying evrywhere,
    air pollution in the air,
    Happy Birthday,Happy Birthday…..
    Have a nice weekend.

    0
    #138211

    julio_slsc
    Participant

    Ford just had their debt downgraded again. Junk? Garbage bonds?
     
    The black belts can’t get the quality right for the customers.
     
    To many people buying Toyotas.
     
    Toyota does not care about belts
     
    julio

    0
    #138213

    julio_slsc
    Participant

    ignore results?
    Look at what ford did to six sigma. It ruined six sigma.
     

    0
    #138217

    EdG
    Participant

    julio,
    There is a difference between ruining the tool and incorrectly utilizing the tool.
    Ford is NOT powerful enough to ruin Six Sigma.  However they can be incompetent enough to misuse Six Sigma and in the end ruin themselves.
    “What the student has not learned, the teacher has not yet taught.”  Maybe they had poor teachers or maybe they simply did not listen.  Either way, they have failed.

    0
    #138225

    grizzly ghoul
    Participant

    We are waiting for you ——- mwahahahaha

    0
    #144813

    James Thompson
    Participant

    Demming worked, learned from a General Electric Engineer, added his to it, Toyota’s Chief Engineer added much, allowing Toyota to pass Ford, passing General Motors. The Demming Method is opposed to Emmanuel Kant’s Deontology Ethics, taught exclusively in all US philosophy departments; and as Social Darwinism, Kant’s Deontological Ethics, is the unacknowledged, un-American philosophy of both the US Rulling Class and their Republican Party. Full Demming Method requires all full scholarship college/university admissions, based on I.Q.s; as were pre Vietnam SATs; devided by ten, SAT Scores became I.Q.s. For George w. Bush, Albert Gore Jr. types, with SAT Sores of 1100, I.Q.s of 110, California Oriental parent pushed children with average I.Q.s of 110, but all with true I.Q.s of 100, there would be no more college! Low I.Q.s can be pushed to graduate degrees, but, unable to perform, make huge, irrecoverable mistakes!

    0
    #144816

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    It  looks  like  a  “quiz”?

    0
    #144818

    Immanuel vs. Emmanuelle
    Participant

    Not quite sure what makes James such a happy camper. But with all the impressive knowledge of isolated facts in the history of philosophy, there is one small little “slip of the keyboard”. The old man’s first name was “Immanuel”. “Emmanuelle” was a soft porn that became popular in the 1980s because so many closeted Republicans could finally switch on their TV at 11 PM without having to sneak into a peep show knowing that their reveered wives were already in bed praying for redemption.
    In regards to the relationship between Deming’s (one m) view on  problem solving methodology and I. Kant’s “synthetisches Urteil a priori”, James may want to catch up on the philosophical literature of the past 10 years: Hacohen, Ter Hart, and Wettersten are good starting points to brush up on the now somewhat outdated, dusty postmodern books that James read in his romantic years. If Deming agreed or disagreed with the “praktische Vernunft” we will never know. So that hypothesis is truly James’ contribution to the history of philosophy. I am looking forward to reading the evidence for this interesting proposition in one of the US top layered Journals of Philosophy, or History of Ideas. Good luck with your publication!!!! 
    Finally, it is extremely doubtful that the likes of Rove (drop out from undergraduate because he could not fullfil the math requirements), Bush (no need to discuss further), or Cheney would ever even want to read or understand the “prologema of a future metaphysics”. I think you are crediting these “leaders” with more intellectual substance than they ever deserve.
    Keep on amusing this forum with your cute little aphorisms. However, I would suggest to consult Pascal, Lichtenberg, Nietzsche or Cioran to make your messages a little more sophisticated. Right now they sound like some rambling by a “popular philosopher” who has been overdosing on Wilkipedia.

    0
    #144821

    Fontanilla
    Participant

    You ignorant jerk !
    Have some respect for one of the greatest men in history of industry.
    Who is your hero … that fool Harry ?

    0
    #144822

    Aquinas
    Member

    I agree Charles. I don’t think the following quotes from Mikel Harry would amuse them:
    “Well, when your daughter comes home from high school and says she received a course in sex education, what do you say? It is likely that you would respond: “Wonderful.” But when she comes home and says she had sex training? “
    “In short, numbers-oriented thinking applies to people as much as it applies to processes and products.”

    0
    #144844

    Vikas
    Member

    This most disgusting that six sigma use sex education to teach.
    “Well, when your daughter comes home from high school and says she received a course in sex education, what do you say? It is likely that you would respond: “Wonderful.” But when she comes home and says she had sex training? “

    0
    #166470

    Larry
    Participant

    Hi, Folks
    Gee, you’d think someone who complains about name spelling would get Jack Welch’s name spelt right.
    ;-)
    Larry

    0
    #166471

    gb
    Participant

    Nice one…:-) May be with Practice, it might be… Haha!
     
    Regards,
    Ganesh Bhat (GB)

    0
    #166473

    Mikel
    Member

    There’s a paper here that talks about the differences in detail:
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/SixSigmaFallacies/SSDeming.htm
    Expect the usual response from this forum as the SS consultants attempt to attack the messenger rather than discuss the content.
     

    0
    #166474

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Though TQM tried to associates itself with Deming, as have some of the Six Sigma folks, Deming was no big fan of TQM, either.  He openly disparaged against it.  I say we need to get back to what has proven to work, consistently, over time:  The Deming Management System.
    I have had some long discussions with my friend and colleague, David Nave, a very active member of the W. Edwards Deming Institute (and graduate of the inaugural Deming Scholars MBA Program at Fordham) with regard to whether it is time for “the second coming” of Deming.  I think it’s time to get back to the basics and forget all the hoopla and garbage that’s been spread out there.  But, for that to happen, the Deming proponents have to get off their butts and make it happen.  I’m ready – anybody care to join in?

    0
    #166475

    Deanb
    Participant

    Deming was a purist. He felt that the proven principles of quality required no brand, or handle. I think TQM did not merely try to associate with Deming, but was largely an attempt for the masses to deploy many of Demings principles. It was the deployment that took on handles and variations. If you go back and study Fred Taylor’s Scientific Management, deployment flaws brought that movement down too. If you read chapter one of Scientific Management by Taylor, it is clear he intended the gains to accrue to the workers as well as to management, owners and society. Taylor constantly decried how his powerful tools were abused by greedy management at the expense of workers and others. Deming and Juran followed this period of widely documented abuse, which I believe influenced the academic work of the day and contributed to their strong sentiments about how worker’s well being logically had to figure more heavily into the mix.Demings principles were a significant refinement and improvement of Scientific Management. Demings successful application spanning over 7 decades is an awesome, and unmatched track record. Any deviations from Deming going forward requires overwhelming evidence to warrant the change IMHO.

    0
    #166476

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Dang, you’re good, Dean!  You are spot on, in my opinion.  Another aspect totally lost on most is the fact that an outgrowth of Taylor was what we now know as The Toyota Production System.  Toyoda studied Ford and their production methods, which came directly from Taylor.  The thing is, Toyoda, Ohno and Shingo didn’t copy Ford, but took the time to learn, adapt, apply and improve for their own business, which was vastly different from the Ford mass production model.
    In the end, once we give something a “name,” no matter what it is, it becomes a program rather than the way we just naturally conduct our business – a way of living our business life.  I believe that this is where Deming was coming from – it should be a natural part of our lives – not forced by some group of “elite” types, who are “here to help you.”
    Finally, if I had to name just one key lesson which I received from Dr. D., it would be that management without theory is folly, and that one must always challenge the theory and THINK!  This only comes from Profound Knowledge about your business and people.  There is no instant pudding, just a lot of hard work.

    0
    #166477

    Deanb
    Participant

    I couldn’t agree more with you Shooter. How do you get organizations to THINK the way you described? In the marketing profession they call it “Deep Knowing.” Same idea. And this is just not top mgt thinking, but a form of “organizational thinking” that is nurtured and promoted. The longer I am in this business, the more I believe that quality management begins with quality thinking, and anything that impinges on that needs to be quickly identified and corrected. I am not sure pre-packaged roadmaps do organizations a service in the long run.

    0
    #166478

    Brandon
    Participant

    Oh what the heck….I might as well throw my opinion in here…like anybody really cares about someone else’s opinion.
    There is no “cure-all” – there are uses and benefits from most all approaches to improve things. Some applicable sometimes, most applicable all times, combinations applicable…whatever. They each contribute, they each provide a form of solution.
    The real tricky part is they all have to be accomplished through people…aha, the weak link. That’s where they all break down when they breakdown….egos, WIFM’s, attitudes, weak people locked into key positions and on and on. Then throw in competition, innovation, changing distribution channels, fads, wrongly influenced press and on and on.
    It ain’t a perfect world and it never will be…thank goodness. Because that yields opportunity.

    0
    #166479

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Dean,
    Rather than paraphrase and do a disservice to James Womack (and since he givers permission to share this with others), I am posting his most recent e-letter, which I think addresses your question – very much on point – regarding how a corporate culture can be transformed into one that thinks.  The Socratic method of asking thoughtful and probing questions thrives!
    From James Womack e-letter:
    For years I’ve visited companies where “respect for people” is a core element of the corporate philosophy. So I’ve asked managers in many companies a simple question. “How do you show respect?” I have usually heard that employees should be treated fairly, given clear goals, trusted to achieve them in the best way, and held to account for results. For example, “We hire smart people, we give them great latitude in how they do their work because we trust them, and we hold them to objective measures of performance. That’s respect for people.”
    When in recent years Toyota made respect for people one of the pillars of the Toyota Way I decided I should ask the best Toyota managers how they show respect for people. The answer I have heard is a good bit different from what I’ve heard at many other companies and goes as follows:
    Managers begin by asking employees what the problem is with the way their work is currently being done. Next they challenge the employees’ answer and enter into a dialogue about what the real problem is. (It’s rarely the problem showing on the surface.)
    Then they ask what is causing this problem and enter into another dialogue about its root causes. (True dialogue requires the employees to gather evidence on the gemba – the place where value is being created — for joint evaluation.)
    Then they ask what should be done about the problem and ask employees why they have proposed one solution instead of another. (This generally requires considering a range of solutions and collecting more evidence.)
    Then they ask how they – manager and employees – will know when the problem has been solved, and engage one more time in dialogue on the best indicator.
    Finally, after agreement is reached on the most appropriate measure of success, the employees set out to implement the solution.
    For many of us that doesn’t sound much like respect for people. The manager after all doesn’t just say “I trust you to solve the problem because I respect you. Do it your way and get on with it.” And the manager isn’t a morale booster, always saying, “Great job!” Instead the manager challenges the employees every step of the way, asking for more thought, more facts, and more discussion, when the employees just want to implement their favored solution.
    Over time I’ve come to realize that this problem solving process is actually the highest form of respect. The manager is saying to the employees that the manager can’t solve the problem alone, because the manager isn’t close enough to the problem to know the facts. He or she truly respects the employees’ knowledge and their dedication to finding the best answer. But the employees can’t solve the problem alone either because they are often too close to the problem to see its context and they may refrain from asking tough questions about their own work. Only by showing mutual respect – each for the other and for each other’s role – is it possible to solve problems, make work more satisfying, and move organizational performance to an ever higher level. 
    Recently I walked through two distribution centers in the same city providing the same type of service for their customers. As I walked I found a wonderfully clear example of the difference that mutual respect for people makes.
    In the first facility management was focused on controlling the workforce through individual metrics. Employees were told to get a given amount of work done but given considerable latitude on just how to do it. They were judged at the end of the day, week, month, and quarter on whether they achieved the desired results, using data collected by a computerized tracking system. Front-line managers were busily engaged in working around current problems but none was systematically engaged in actually solving these problems at the root cause in collaboration with the employees. This was a task for higher-level managers and staff experts as time permitted, usually without the involvement of the production associates.
    In the second facility, the management had worked with employees to create standard work for every task and had introduced visual control with status boards so everyone could see how everyone else was proceeding with their work. Because the condition of the entire process was instantly visible to everyone, employees could help each other with any problems which emerged. And because the work process was very stable due to strict adherence to standardized work, line managers could devote most of their energy to problem solving by engaging production associates in dialogues to get to root causes and implement sustainable solutions. Indeed, every associate spent four hours every week on improvement activities.
    What is the result? Both facilities are in the same city, have employees with the same educational level, and pay roughly the same wage. Yet annual turnover of associates in the first facility is 70 percent (which seems to be typical in distribution centers) and there is significant management turnover as well. Meanwhile, in the second facility, associate turnover is 1 percent and practically no managers leave. When I asked managers and associates in the second center why this should be, the answer was simple: “The work here is always challenging because we are always solving problems using a method we all understand. And we all respect each other’s contribution.”
    The differences continue: In my rough estimate labor productivity in the second facility is about twice that of the first even with less automation. This is partly because the first facility is constantly hiring and training new employees while the second distribution center spends practically no time on this task. In addition, all employees in the second facility are experienced and working at the top of their learning curve. Large amounts of confusion about what to do next and larger amounts of rework are eliminated.
    Finally, in the second facility, quality as experienced by customers is higher as well even though there is less internal rework. And the total amount of inventory on hand to provide the next-day service that both facilities promise their customers is also much lower in the second distribution center.
    I trust you can guess which facility is a Toyota parts distribution center and which facility belongs to a distribution firm stuck (like most) in the age of mass production with command-and-control management methods but little discussion of how employees can best do their jobs.
    I also trust that all of us want to show respect for people. The challenge for those of us in the Lean Community is to embrace and explain the true nature of mutual respect for people – managers and associates – so all organizations can move toward a new and better way of solving their problems.
    Best regards,
    Jim
    Jim WomackFounder and ChairmanLean Enterprise Institute
    P.S. Some readers found my comments on kaizen in my recent e-letter confusing. They thought I said that kaizen is muda. (And my colleague John Shook, LEI’s Senior Advisor, called me to ask how there could ever be too much kaizen!) To be clear: I said that unnecessary kaizen caused by the frequent failure to gather and deploy the knowledge from previous kaizen in every new product and process launch is muda. Let me tie this to the example above. A key task for lean managers in the Toyota facility I cited above is to capture and diffuse the learning from each improvement activity. That way future problem solving focuses on new problems discovered in a process already at a higher level of performance rather than solving the same old problem one more time.
     
    Feel free to forward this message to suppliers, customers, or colleagues who are implementing lean – or should be. If this e-letter was forwarded to you, visit http://www.lean.org to subscribe. Just click the “Join” button on the right to get a free subscription and access to all the valuable content about implementing lean principles in production and service value streams.
     

    0
    #166480

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Brandon,

    Don’t be so glum :-)   Opinions are valuable – they make us think, when one gives them due consideration.  And you are correct: there are no cure-alls.  Just a lot of hard work to understand your business, your people, the tools and methods available to you, and then the often gut-wrenching work necessary to achieve lasting improvement.
    You raise the view I’ve long held.  Every organization needs to apply according to their needs.  Each company – heck, each department within a company – is different.  This is why it is incumbent upon the organization to seek that elusive thing Deming calls “Profound Knowledge.”  Without this in-depth understanding of the organization – business systems, processes and people – they will opt for the quick and easy, follow-the-numbers-to-Nirvana approaches that fall on the scrap heap of corporate history.  This is why I am not a big fan of case studies, because, rather than use them as a learning tool, they become a cookbook for instant pudding.  This is why “Learn, Adapt, Apply, Improve” has become one of my key mantras.

    0
    #166481

    Mustard
    Participant

    Six Sigma Shooter,
    I believe we spend too much time listening to people who have never worked for Toyota or any Japanese company for that matter.
    Respect is not a pillar of TPS – you only have to visit their website to confirm my claim.
    Now I don’t disagree with a lot of what you said: but to my mind a half truth is worse than a damned lie. And Womach and Monden have circulated many half-truths in their attempt to make money.
    Compliments of the Season to you and yours!

    0
    #166482

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Mustard,
    You are not correct – your claim is dashed on the rocks of being misinformed.  This, from Toyota’s website:

    Diversity in Our Workforce

    From a product planner shaping the next generation hybrid, to the craftsman who executes that design, Toyota employees represent a wide cross-section of talents, experiences and backgrounds. We are engineers and technicians, sales people and designers, managers and business professionals. We come from all over the United States and across the world.
    In the United States, Toyota is comprised of several affiliate companies that reflect our multi-tiered diversity. Our stable of brands includes Lexus, Scion and Toyota. As well as selling cars, trucks, vans and SUVs, Toyota also designs and manufactures these vehicles, using local and globally sourced parts.
    We are committed to making sure employees at all levels of our organization represent the many faces of America today. As a company, we understand that diversity is an on-going process, and an essential part of who we are. Achieving and maintaining a diverse workforce is not a one-dimensional goal. In fact, diversity at Toyota is a marriage of the two pillars of the Toyota Way: continuous improvement and respect for people.
    http://www.toyota.com/about/our_commitment/diversity/employment/index.html 

    0
    #166483

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Mustard,
    I can’t let the rest of your post go unchallenged.  You claim that there are many “half-truths” made by Womack and Monden in their pursiut of profit.  First, LEI is a non-profit organization.  Second, what specific “half-truths” do you believe they have made?  Since you have already been shown to be misinformed with regard to Respect for People being a pillar of the Toyota Way, your other contentions become less than credible.  Please show us the data.
    Wishing all a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous 2008!
    Shooter

    0
    #166486

    Mustard
    Participant

    http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/vision/production_system/
    My objection was the use of the term Pillar, which has a specific meaning in our company.

    0
    #166487

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Nice try, but it won’t wash.  Your company website uses it as avertised by Womack.  You then used your misinformation to defame the character of two respected individuals by using it as an example of profiteering and lies.  Very serious accusations, indeed.    Either show your data or acknowledge you were wrong.   If you have an issue with howToyota uses the word Pillar, I suggest you take it up with your internal website people.    Obviously, Mustard, you need a little ketchup to go along with the Mustard on your face.

    0
    #166488

    Mikel
    Member

    Dan,
    It is a very sad comment on quality that Harry has achieved the status he has on the basis of his stupid 3.4 dpmo and his various attempts to prop it up.  It is even more astounding that so many people today still cling to this nonsense.

    0
    #166489

    Mikel
    Member

    It may be understandable that a psychologist like Harry would make such a mess of an area he knows nothing about, that is quality, but comments like his :
    “In short, numbers-oriented thinking applies to people as much as it applies to processes and products.”
    … show Harry and his followers’ pure ignorance.

    0
    #166490

    Joe BB
    Participant

    Some people are really losing it because of Harry. Is it jealousy or what?
    Harry is famous because of his contributions to Six Sigma of which he is the Godfather.

    0
    #166491

    Fake Harry Alert
    Participant

    Agree
    It  is  a  pure  “envy”.
    Harry is  not  interested  to reply those pretenders.He  is  too  busy

    0
    #166495

    Brandon
    Participant

    Say what you wish about Mikel Harry…but he made millions from SS.
    To see such derogatory statements about him begs the question…are we all in this to change the world or to make a living?
    If it’s the first…then, thank you for your efforts. If it’s the second….then he wins…..by far!

    0
    #166497

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Brandon,
    What about changing the world AND making money?
    Shooter

    0
    #166498

    Deanb
    Participant

    I have had two main problems with Harry’s approach: one is theoretical and the other is deployment oriented.In his Breakthrough book series, he states “if you do not know something in quantitative terms then you do not know much about the subject at all.” My problem with this is it can only apply to those things that depend on data or numbers, which does not include basic logic or ethics. A conceptual fallacy does not depend on data or numbers, yet quality improvement heavily depends on sound logic and ethics. I have seen this flaw precipitate many sub optimum efforts.Deployment wise, the BB system creates separateness, which can kill real organizational development in the long run. Many companies doing six sigma have learned to reintegrate BBs and GBs back into the org functions from where they came, and have found embedding this competency throughout has produced more gains than when the program was separated. Back to Deming again. My 2-cents.

    0
    #166501

    Deanb
    Participant

    I do not fault anyone for making a good buck while providing a needed service. However, when we take on the role of advising others, we have a duty to try to apply the best thinking and approaches possible. To do this we must examine the prevailing ideas and theories critically, which is how I view the spirit of this discussion. We can be critical of M. Harry’s ideas without criticizing him as a professional.

    0
    #166502

    Brandon
    Participant

    Good point Dean…and I have no like or dislike for the guy. I’ve heard some things about him that indicate there is a lot I would not like – on a personal level; maybe even a professional level.
    And, I don’t doubt he isn’t the “thought leader” in any of this…other than in how to package it and sell it. In early, told a great (well, at least, a salable) story, made a fortune and got out before SS showed its weaknesses. The rest of us are still making our various contributions to getting a valuable discipline to work properly…well, some of us are. Others are just criticising it for fun.

    0
    #166503

    Fake Harry Alert
    Participant

    Good  point

    0
    #166504

    Deanb
    Participant

    You would think that when any new program emerges it would begin as an incremental refinement by incorporating the best of the past-while adjusting something that clearly needed adjusting. Six-sigma didn’t emerge that way. It was so different it was more like a revolution, running more against past practices than with them.When six-sigma blew into town it came with a lot of dogma and piss and vinegar, but little intellectual synergy or debate. Either a person “got it” or they were cast as a loser. This heavy-handedness may have favored a few internal and external players, but it prevented intellectual maturing of the profession. Real theoretical leaders welcome debate without feeling threatened. Most of our six-sigma leaders have been promoters more than true leaders. This is why we find ourselves looking back to Deming for answers.It appears the philosophical debate that was needed then is happening now. It is never too late to reflect and improve.

    0
    #166505

    Brandon
    Participant

    Well said, Dean. It’s no longer a magic elixir…now we have to make it work to sustain its life. And I certainly believe it can.

    0
    #166603

    Velasquez
    Participant

    JoeBB,
    Recently, Dr. Harry posted some personal information from which we were able to deduce he is a frequent visitor to this forum.
    Why hasn’t Dr. Harry defended his position himself. Why does he always hide behind a non de plume, or someone else. What does this say about his character?
    Martin

    0
    #166604

    Terry
    Member

    I Googled ‘Pillars of TPS’ and found Mustard’s statement to be correct.As for the “very serious accusations indeed”, I find there is a huge difference between charging someone with a lie and a half-truth; but the distinction may be too subtle for someone who calls themselves “Six Sigma Shooter” :-)By the way, much to my surprise, ‘Mustard’ is a real family name.

    0
    #172070

    Kevin Morgano
    Participant

    The gun was NOT used wrong, the deranged SS consultant simply made a poor decision, but since he was deranged, he cannot be held accountable.

    0
    #176421

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    No, Demming never said that ‘management design the process and download it onto the hapless workforce’, that was F. W. Taylor! In fact, the bastardised version of Demming’s and later Cordiner’s ideas at GE owes more to Taylors’s ‘Scientific Management’ than to any of the excellent precepts of Demming. You can no more ensure quality by the use of statistical tools than you can by inspection – in fact the two approaches are identical in effect. If you need to use statistical tools in order to try and understand what is wrong with a process, then you don’t understand the process – you need, in Demming’s terms to raise your skill levels and knowledge, and using that you can provide effective leadership. The aspect of Taylor’s system that was most readily accepted by 1920s management, was the understanding that if it was ‘scientific’ it could not fail; therefore any failure in the process was the fault of the workforce, not the manager. It absolved managers from any responsibility for failure – it was never their fault. There is considerable evidence that 6-Sigma is being used in the same way – to insulate managers from the efects of their incompetance or lack of knowledge – it cannot be their fault as 6-Sigma is based on the science of statistical analysis. Demming understood a fundamental precept, that was again, used by Cordiner at GE, and latterly by Jack Welch – managers are not there to make decisions – they are there to ensure that the right decisions are carried out!

    0
    #176422

    Darth
    Participant

    Mervyn, for G_d’s sake, at least spell the guys name correctly!!!!!  It’s Deming…..one m.  I hate these supposed experts on Deming who don’t even know the correct spelling of his name.  Sort of diminishes some credibility, ya think?????

    0
    #176423

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    Hi Darth,
    Sorry, its late at night here, and its been a long day… I have been reading some of the comments in this long thread and howling with laughter – brilliant! Sadly, for every good implementation of Deming’s TQM or 6-Sigma, there are fifty thoroughly bad ones. My experience is that management use it as a tool to hide behind, to insulate themselve from responsibility for failure. Deming’s ideas work well in Japan because of the difference in culture – a failed manager performs ritual disembowelment because he has lost face (hey, that is a neat way to solve the pay-off problem we have in England!) However, the workforce do not critisise the management as that would also involve loss of face. Both sides are therefore forced to accept a degree of cooperation rather than intense confrontation, as happens in America and England. It is a fact that after the huge success of Deming’s ideas in the second world war, companies could not wait to get back to the bad old habits of Taylorism. Charlie Chaplin’s brilliant send-up of the Taylorist culture in America, ‘Modern Times’ encapsulates the awful results of management by diktat. It is a fact that Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Albert Speer, were great admirers of Fred Taylor, as were the Japanese. But they lost, which gives us a very clear message as to what works in practice. Bad managers always seek ways to avoid responsibility – a good manager is there to listen and implement the consensus. The singular application of TQM or 6-Sigma by itself is a blind response – to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Deming understood that without the consensus, quality would be impossible – therefore the implementation of any of these tools should have concensus management as its primary goal.

    0
    #176424

    Vallee
    Participant

    So I guess this is why there is always an attempt to get a sponsor and an owner for a process fully engaged in the project so that they become and are part of the process… sure sounds like just blaming the worker to me when done right. Wrong… nice speech though. Writing a book?HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176427

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    Chris,
    As soon as the words ‘sponsor’ and ‘owner’ creep in you are back to hierarchal management and good old Fred Taylor. At the end of the 1990s, the (now defunct) Marconi company hired Jack Welch to try and reform the managerial structure. A wonderful training video was produced that had us rolling in the aisles. Jack gave a wonderfully slick and compelling presentation and at the end, our CEO, Lord Simpson, thanked him and asked for questions from the floor. There was silence for a bit, and then a small voice said, ‘Jack, you have said a great deal about the levels of management in an organisation – what do you consider the optimum number of levels?’ Jack snapped back, ‘No levels!’ Well, if you have ever seen rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming pick-up truck…. Management is too often about work avoidance in a hierarchal structure – remember Fred Taylor’s ideas were only vilified when he suggested that the cosy 9 to 5 paid holiday in the office block at Bethlehem Steel should also come under the principles he had applied to Dutch Schmidt and his crew. Now that was really popular!
    cheers,
     
    Merv

    0
    #176428

    Vallee
    Participant

    The words “sponsor” and “owner” don’t just creep in, they are part of the process. You seem to forget that Taylor pushed setting up an efficient, non-stop manufacturing crew squeaking out any concern for the actual employee… just the process and how to use the employee. He also used these same methods with his own family for case studies. Yes, every new (improved, changed) improvement process is built on the backs of other work (from good and not so good foundations). It is called evolution with improvements needing to be dynamic for the next target improvement. Just show me one original idea that is not built from others and you will find one or two pieces that are legacy developments.HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176431

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    Sponsor and owner have very clear definitions in the English language, and in this application fall outside of Deming’s 14 points. We are all ‘owners’ of any process, and are all responsible for its success or failure, including black belt 6-Sigma sponsors. Back in the 1990s we had a highly paid TQM consultant who made us jump through all the usual hoops, up until the point where I asked him where this all came from. Well, he just didn’t seem to know, so I researched Deming, and all the other people who had tried to break the mindset of Taylorism. Sadly it was never fully implemented – it could have been very positive, but it was obvious that at least 70% of our managers would have to be turned into cat food. And turkeys never vote for Christmas. That Taylor was a control freak is without doubt – what did Mrs Taylor and the little Taylorites have to say about this? Yet Taylor was a hypocrite – he used to turn up to meetings at Bethelehem, late and in his golfing gear, chatting blithely on about his handicap! Yes, everything you look at is the result of development, not design. Everything we have has been developed, over the past 150 years – design by comparison is a trivial part of the process. But it will fail without that critical, all important element – knowledge. As was well understood by Deming, ignorance is the major cause of failure – follow Louis Pasteur’s excellent dictum, ‘chance favours the prepared mind’. 6-Sigma is an excellent tool set, that properly applied will bring great benefits. But without that all important element – knowledge – it will certainly fail! 

    0
    #176432

    Vallee
    Participant

    Once again nice speech even sounding philosophical this time, but what is your real point? What global knowledge are you referring to? Knowledge of improvement creation….sorry started before Taylor. Knowledge of the process being improved…. observation has been used in history for years? Knowledge of knowledge? Please explain in one concise sentence. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176433

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    Knowledge of the subject to which the tool is applied. I have seen people drowning in data, when with the correct knowledge they would have found the solution in five minutes. The excellent article by David Drickhammer, ‘Not all Black Belts are created equal’ in 2004 makes that point clearly. One weakness in the current 6-Sigma process is that it doesn’t provide sufficiently good training in diagnostics – a key element in problem solving. You are not going to learn that in 4 weeks! The use of statistical analysis is only a small part of the diagnostic process, and if applied alone, without the other aspects of the skill set, it can fail, and badly.

    0
    #176434

    Vallee
    Participant

    I do agree that the there is a need to improve the define, measure, and analysis phase when it comes to six sigma or any problem solving. Be careful though, being an expert in a field can also lead to anchoring, confirmation, and hindsight bias. Experts are quick to see patterns in data based on past experience and skill. This is fine unless the problem unknown to the quick problem solver is one not in that pattern. Speed does not always equate to quality… think about medical diagnostics for a good example of failures. The only difference is quick decisions without good thought in the non-medical world is that it can take a long time to show up. Look at the financial crisis of today for a great example of that. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176440

    Severino
    Participant

    “You can no more ensure quality by the use of statistical tools than you can by inspection – in fact the two approaches are identical in effect. If you need to use statistical tools in order to try and understand what is wrong with a process, then you don’t understand the process – you need, in Demming’s terms to raise your skill levels and knowledge, and using that you can provide effective leadership.”
    Are you suggesting that Deming would argue against the use of statistical tools to gain knowledge about the process? 
     

    0
    #176444

    Mikel
    Member

    Pretty stupid interpretation of Deming.

    0
    #176447

    Darth
    Participant

    Stan, I channeled into Dr. D this morning and he thinks that the poster has read his mind perfectly. What’s your problem?????….besides that.

    0
    #176449

    Mikel
    Member

    No problems mon!How silly I have been all these years reading Deming and seeing him, I
    thought when I saw the stuff about Stats that he was actually in favor
    of them.

    0
    #176466

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    I fully agree, Chris, as you get older (63) you have to continually remember – an expert does not think – he knows! So I have to listen, in particular to younger engineers, and try and give, not my opinion, but the group concensus. Sometimes that involves very hard work – the digging out of the knowledge that supports their case, and gives them the confidence to move forward. But the rewards are very great. Deming’s greatest message is not often stated and I am not sure he stated it himself. It is stop mistrusting people – people is all we have, and only they can find the will and the energy to move forward – the transformation is everybody’s work! The last bit is his point 14!
    Merv

    0
    #176470

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    Absolutely not – Deming was expert in the design of experiments, and knew very well that the choice of the statistical structure of an experiment was key to its success. This is an analytical process that involves choice, design and further analysis. The end result is a fuller understanding of what the data really means – if you do not achieve this, you have failed. Remember H. G. Wells story – ‘The Country of the Blind’. In which popular belief holds that the one eyed man is king. But it turns out that the blind have no wish to see, and look on the possesion of sight as a curse to be removed. In a sense, anyone who takes on a Deming style approach comes up against this problem – as my grandfather used to say, ‘None so blind as them that won’t see!’ There is absolutely no doubt in Deming’s ability to see the truth in the data, his singular success and those he trained in WWII are ample proof of that.

    0
    #176477

    Vallee
    Participant

    An expert filters out information by recognizing patterns quickly which is exactly the point. Because he/she “knows” and does not think, he/she can and very easily filters out needed information…. age is not the discriminator as you state, speed and pattern searching are. In fact the more you learn the more you should realize that you don’t know everything…. look up levels of integration for that explanation. Of course if one knows then the problem should have already been fixed and you should not still be in the room trying to make people feel good about what you already know and didn’t fix. Group consensus in you words sure sounds like “group think”. I feel like I’m reading the book of favorite quotes that I should be putting on my car bumper. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176481

    Severino
    Participant

    Actually, as I recall the data suggests that Deming knew very little about Design of Experiments and commented on it very rarely.

    0
    #176483

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    No, concensus management has nothing to do with group think – or brainstorming. I have a copy of the Effective Presentation course (circa 1958) at GE, which was a brilliant piece of social engineering, designed to teach managers how to behave. Quite often, a group deeply troubled by a problem has some inkling of the way forward – yet confrontation within the group stops an effective plan being generated. A good facilitator makes that effective plan happen, not by imposition, but by steering the group into a concensus that accepts this as their own conclusion. Cordiner was well aware – and here is another one for your bumper – that bad management drives out good! All management trainees and senior engineers attended the course – which was one day a week for 16 weeks. Quite a commitment of resource, but with a very positive outcome. This also answers your point regarding why, when someone knew the solution, was it not implemented? You can only implement what is accepted by the group as a concensus – for good, well understood reasons.

    0
    #176489

    Vallee
    Participant

    Trust me, I do know the difference between “real” group consensus and group think. The point is that the facilitator does not walk in “knowing” the answer already. If your goal, inferred from your knowing instead of thinking statement earlier, is to nudge them to agree to your original answer without looking through the facts properly, it is group think. If the facts collected do lead to an answer that the people do not agree with then you need to facilitate the group better. You also need to utilize better strategic alignment when another voice may actually get the ball rolling. Makes me wonder once again what is your agenda. Most of your posts have been riddled with error and facts with a circular discussion. Most responses to your posts by all have called out the errors. You think six sigma is just a tool set; you think it takes too long when an all knowing already knows; you belief Deming was not interested in stats even in the slightest. And finally, you quote many out of context. So besides being good at giving me something to respond to while on the road what is your point.HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #176490

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    So Deming worked from 1927 to 1939 for the United States Dept. of Agriculture, and yet knew nothing of the fundamental work of R. A Fisher and the Rothhamstead group? I find that very hard to believe! Particularly as Deming himself emphasised that the use of statistical methods for process control had started in the 1920s. In fact, some of the Taylorist progenitors were experimenting with statistical methods at this time, in America, the USSR and Germany. In fact the most effective developments in statistical theory at this time were in the USSR – not in the West. 

    0
    #176515

    Mervyn Hobden
    Participant

    It seems irony is wasted on you guys – my comment on the ‘all knowing expert’ not thinking was in that vein. And I certainly never suggested that Deming was not interested in stats – Deming was openly critical of those who applied statistical tools in the vain hope of an outcome. And I would never consider imposing a solution – in that respect I will stick very firmly to the principles of Deming and Ralph Cordiner. So where does that leave the present manifestation of 6-sigma and lean? I have to say the the responses seen on this site to honest questions posted by many applicants leads me to believe that 6-sigma is a Taylorist wolf in sheep’s clothing. And like Taylorism in the 1920s, it could go very badly wrong. You can put your tongue very firmly in your cheek and suggest that Fred W. Taylor was responsible for the Great Depression, and 45 million dead in WWII –  pardonable exageration and not strictly true. But those who believed in his ideas certainly were!

    0
    #177071

    Mockingbird
    Participant

    All of this is new info to me.  I am not in the field.  However it sounds like there is a disagreement among participants.
    If you are very knowledgeable about these two philosophies, tell me if either Six Sigma or Deming Methods could be applied to other fields, such as education??  If so, how?

    0
    #177073

    Darth
    Participant

    Your question asks whether SS or Deming can be applied to “other fields”. Other than what????? Where do you think it is being applied that would not be applicable to any organization that has processes? Do some Googling and you will see SS being applied in education. Continue your search for applications in healthcare, insurance, banking, construction, advertising, publishing, government, the Army/Navy, and about anything else you can think of. Now what is your question? As for how, same way as everywhere else with some minor tweaks for the uniqueness of the respective process.

    0
    #177079

    anon
    Participant

    And Jsev607, we know you have been checking for it diligently. Keep up the good work – so to speak.

    0
    #177085

    Severino
    Participant

    Apparently the forum mods didn’t appreciate my humor and removed my post.  More’s the pity.

    0
    #186473

    steven chaisson
    Member

    What is James talking about. Demings believe quality was driven by leadership, his leadership required the participation of all in the workforce for continuous improvement, regardless of differences and iq level. Demings would admit all to college who desired a degree. He advocated training all the workforce, which had to be done during the world war 2, he was also part of the Hawthorne experiment, look it up. He would be right in line with Kantism.

    0
    #186475

    Darth
    Participant

    Hey Steve, Thanks for jumping into a three year old thread. Your comments are really timely and useful. Oh, by the way, his name was Deming, not Demings.

    0
    #186477

    Alto
    Participant

    Yeah, we can see their shadows on the wall of the cave, but we know who they are …

    0
Viewing 82 posts - 101 through 182 (of 182 total)

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