iSixSigma

SS Name Change Needed

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General SS Name Change Needed

Viewing 67 posts - 1 through 67 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45549

    Markert
    Participant

    The term “six sigma” has led quality into the dark ages.  As is evident here, people persist in posting meaningless six sigma tables, referring to sigma levels, doing transforms and other such time wasting activities.  Even the “sigma” calculated from “six sigma” bears no relation to the true “sigma” for a process.
    The term “Six Sigma” should be dropped and replaced with “Continuous Improvement”.

    0
    #149099

    Haugen
    Participant

    No Phil – You’re not following the rules of the game.  I t must be two words, roll off the tongue almost rhythmically, and be a combination that is new, so it can be sold to executives.
    I’ll start – Nano Focus – tools and methods understanding the unseen drivers of performance in your business!

    0
    #149101

    Mikel
    Member

    I prefer a name change to “Common Sense with tools, time and support guaranteed”
    Kind of rolls of the tongue don’t you think?

    0
    #149104

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    I  was  suggesting  that  before  some  time  and  nobody gave  attention??

    0
    #149105

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    I  suggest a  comprehensive  concept ,containing  all Quality  concepts:TQM,SS,Lean-SS,Change/Project Management,Kaizen….etc
    We  may  call  it  “Quality’s Pyramid” or “Pyramid  of  Quality”,please  vote…..thanks  and  regards

    0
    #149107

    Ashman
    Member

    Good point.  But it also needs to alliterate.
    How about ” Quantum Quality ”  ? 
    Now does that have a ring to it or what ?

    0
    #149109

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    How about ..
    Four-and-a-half sigma?
    Or Septi Cemia?

    0
    #149111

    Niraj Goyal
    Participant

    I agree totally that a name is needed that in inclusive of all quality movements – as each newer one has derived most of its substance from the past, adding its own little bits.
    How about Quality Driven Breakthrough  Improvements

    0
    #149114

    Markert
    Participant

    You seem to be missing the point.
    The aim is to drop everything associated with all the garbage about 1.5, 4.5, 6 sigmas … and get back to quality.
     

    0
    #149115

    Markert
    Participant

    Marlon,
    Times have changed.  There are now far more people who have woken up to the nonsense of six sigma than there were even six months ago. 
    Like a stampeding herd, at one point nothing seemed to be able to stop the mindless charge, then suddenly the herd swings to a new direction.

    0
    #149124

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    It’s all about the name!  I finally got it.  It has nothing to do with what we actually do, as long as we have a sexy name for it.  And here, all along, I thought it was the actions we take and the improvements we make that were important.  “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”  I guess this universal truth does not hold true for imrpovement.  Maybe, along with a new name for the same old stuff, we can add new belt titles, like Rose Belt, Violet Belt, Evergreen Belt . . .  Any takers?  I’ll sell the certifications for a song.  If you sing “Red Roses for a Blue Lady” real nice, we’ll give you a nice discount.  Maybe we can also sell it through FTD.

    0
    #149125

    M G
    Participant

    “as each newer one has derived most of its substance from the past, adding its own little bits.”
    … or in the case of SS, subtracting rather than adding.

    0
    #149126

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    Lighten up Phil, it was meant to be a joke.
    On a more serious note – do you really believe you can change the USA’s approach to quality by visiting this site? You should remember that 98% of the West’s statisticians and quality experts have bought into this gabage as you put it.
    Wouldn’t your energy be better spent writing an article or a book about the SS shortcomings?

    0
    #149127

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Another bolt of lightening has struck!  It’s all the fault of Six Sigma.  It is a living, breathing, evil thing.  The failings of the companies has nothing to do with management or the hacks that feed them their pablum. 
    Do you note that, when failures happen, it always ends up being the fault of the “initiative,” and not those idiots looking for short-term gains, cookbook approaches, and instant pudding?  When will they ever learn? 
    So, projecting into the future, another “name” will come along, all dressed in its finery as the latest and greatest thing since sliced bread, the idiots will do their dance again, failures will occur because they still don’t “get it,” so forth and so on.  Get a clue, people!  Names mean absolutely zilch, zero, nada.  It’s what you do, not what you call it!

    0
    #149128

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Maybe of more value would be a book on the shortcomings of short term thinking and the management mindset that feeds it.  It’s the people, not the thing called Six Sigma.

    0
    #149129

    Craig
    Participant

    Phil,
    Please enlighten me on how I get back to “quality”. From my experience at Moto in the late 80s, we were tasked with reducing variation. The idea was to minimize the probability of non-conformances (Out-of-Spec parts) by characterizing, optimizing, and controlling processes. I think this is what Bill Smith had in mind. Perhaps we should go back to the fundamentals rather than creating a new buzzword. How do you prescribe going back to quality?

    0
    #149133

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Good but  too  long ,prefer  to  be  2  words only? 

    0
    #149134

    Markert
    Participant

    hacl,
    Bill Smith did talk about reducing variation but his fundamentals were wrong.  Bill Smith said “Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width. This influences the quality of product as much as the control of process variation does”.
    Quality should not be based on specifications and counting defects. The nonsensical “Six Sigma” and “six sigma” tables have led people away from quality. 
    To get back to Quality, the focus must be “on target with minimum variance”.  A new name that reflects this is needed.

    0
    #149135

    Markert
    Participant

    You are correct in that it is mainly the West – Japan has had more sense.
    According to ASQ 2005, 60% use TQM.
    While US companies may have bought into SS, their statisticians often have had the brains not to :
    Let me add another perspective to Six Sigma. IBM executives started visiting Motorola headquarters shortly after they won their Baldrige, to benchmark and pick up some of their quality practices. First on the list was Six Sigma. I was an internal statistical methods consultant and quality engineer at IBM in Rochester, MN at this time. We were forced to adapt Six Sigma at our site, even though we had the same concerns that have been listed in recent discussions in this forum. Six Sigma was present, but not dominant, by the time our IBM site won a Baldrige in 1990.
    Six Sigma was being implemented corporate-wide at the insistence of some highly placed IBM executives. There were complaints and discussions throughout IBM until the leading technologist in the company called 15-20 statisticians and quality managers together to publish a position paper on Six Sigma. We were encouraged to believe that our opinions and factual evidence were going to get a hearing.
    We expressed concern with Motorola s misuse of statistical terms, the thin theoretical and practical evidence for the 1.5 sigma shift, and the dubious means of counting defects and opportunities for defects. Our position paper was finally regarded as too disruptive to IBM s progress in defect reduction, which management wanted to credit to Six Sigma policies. The position paper was never distributed beyond the team that created it.
    Six Sigma is rarely mentioned around IBM anymore. It quietly disappeared with the radical downsizing that took place from 1991-93, even though it was always touted as not just another quality program. I believe its disappearance did occur primarily because many of its champions either left IBM, or had too many higher priorities left to cover. I left IBM in the downsizing, along with 80% of the quality improvement experts (mostly statisticians).
    Most interestingly, when I have run across Motorola employees in the years since, they consistently state that there is still a passionate pursuit of defect reduction and quality improvement at Motorola, which more or less still occurs under the banner of Six Sigma. We might dismiss the whole Six Sigma approach as sloganism, but we must realize that large corporations necessarily put a simple label on programs that they want to implement corporate-wide. Seemingly, everyone in Motorola knows just what you are talking about when you mention Six Sigma, even if it is different than what we quality experts and statisticians know it is. Their quality improvement process has stood the test of time.
    IBM could not sustain its Six Sigma program, probably because of business factors. Every organization and their circumstances are a little different. I respect General Electric s CEO and their attempt to fully embrace quality improvement. They may succeed if they get their entire workforce to approach quality improvement with a simple, tools oriented, common sense process underneath the slogan of Six Sigma.

    0
    #149136

    Dan Weston
    Participant

    On a more serious note – Are you one of your claimed 98% who believes in six sigma tables ?

    0
    #149144

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Phil :
    Agree  fully  with  your opinion,but  we  shouldn’t  forget  the  following  facts:
    *Motorola  credits the  SS Initiative  for  saving of $ 940 million over 3  years,
    *AlliedSignal (now  Honeywell) reported an  estomated & 1.5 billion in  savings in  1997?
    *GE has  invested  a  billion  $ with a  return of  $ 1.75 billion in 1998 and  an  accumulated  savings of $2.5 billion for  1999?
    *Harry (1998) reports  that  the  average  BB project will  save  about  $175,000,considering  about  5-6 projects per  year per  one  BB?
    Secondly  we  shouldn’t  forget the  advantages  of  SS:
    *Bottom  line   results
    *Senior  Management  is  involved
    *A disciplined approach  is  used (DMAIC)
    *Short project  comletion  times (3-6  months)
    *Clearly defined  measures of  success
     
    *Infrastructure of  trained  individuals (YB,GB,BB,MBB)
    *Customers and  processes  are  the  focus
    *Asound  statistical  approach  is used
    We   shouldn’t (out  of  sudden)  deny all  those  advantages and  focus  only  on  some  minor statistical  pitfall?hust  my  opinion

    0
    #149148

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    My understanding is most Japanese companies use what they refer to as TQC. TQC is based on TPS – the Toyota Production System.
    The use or non-use of a 1.5 sigma shift, or any other kind of shift, would make no difference to TPS quality, because it is completely irrelevant, since as you point out Japansee companies do not count defects! Neither do they use SPC to keep track of their ‘standard times,’ as Ford tried to do.. What a joke!
    Notwithstanding the IBM unpublished report you mentioned, as far as I’m concerned the vast majority of statisticians and quality experts have swallowed Harrry’s version of Six Sigma ‘hook line and sinker.’ Their silence has been ‘thundering!’
    Of course, by SS I’m refering to Motorola’s ‘corporate’ interpretation of Six Sigma and not what the wafer fabs actually practiced in Phoenix or in Austin, which was more akin to Japanese TQC.
    Previous posters – ex-Motoroolans –  have clearly stated Six Sigma was not homogeneous and Dr. Harry did not fairly represent what Motorola engineers actually used to achieve world-class quality. In other words he changed the process without any consultation, characterisation or validation? This would be considered a crime by most Motorolans in those days! What they accept now can probably be attributable to buying back Harry’s SS from GE – What a joke!
    The fact that wafer fabs practiced TQC (TPS)  is hardly surprising given the close working relationship between Hitachi, Motorola MOS 7 (Japan) and later with Toshiba (Cherokee Project.) Yes, Japanese engineers actually worked in one of the Motorola Austin wafer fabs!
    By now it should be apparent that all these arguments and objections have been raised previously, argued, and evidence provided. Yet, the vast majority of quality professionals around the world still accept Harry’s interpretation of Motorola’s SS – the interpretation of someone who never practiced within Motorola, never made any contribution to yield enhancement or quality improvemnet, who has never worked for a Japanese company, and has a Ph.D in training.
    Do Japanese companies use a shift? Do they count defects? Do they heck! I could go on, but I realise my comments are going to fall on deaf ears!

    0
    #149149

    Monk
    Participant

    Owl,
    What are you trying to say? Come to the point…don’t beat in the bush….hit the target.
    You seem to be very upset with the six-sigma community…Are you OK? Let us know, how this forum can help you.
    Monk

    0
    #149150

    Howling Owl
    Participant

    Marlon,
    You’ve made some excellent counter-points.
    The question is how much are due to TQM and scientific management and how much is due to Harry’s contributions – the shift, counting opportunities, counting defects, etc.
    HO

    0
    #149151

    Monk
    Participant

    Dan,
    According to me, there is much more to six-sigma than just 1.5 sigma shift and the six-sigma tables.
    Apart from the six-sigma calculation the pproach followed in solving the problem is more robust than any rpbolem solving methodology that is being used. This is my experience of six-sigma as well as the team with whom I have worked with. You may not necessarily agree with me and you are free to do so because I beleive in six-sigma and though I may not get involved in six-sigma progrm i nfuture, still, I find it useful in my dily work management and continuous improvement.
    I am just ahring my experience and not trying to prove anything.
    Monk

    0
    #149152

    Monk
    Participant

    Owl,
    If you are here to settle scores with Harry and his friends, pl. do so in privacy. This is a public forum for helping to do continuous improvement using six-sigma and any value added information will be appreciated.
    Your message seems to be very revengeful and it doesnot go beyond six-sigma tables and 1.5 shift…why are you stuck in this ? get out of that..if you cannot digest it !
    Monk

    0
    #149153

    Monk
    Participant

    Owl,
    Your statement –
    ‘ Japansee companies do not count defects! Neither do they use SPC to keep track of their ‘standard times,’ as Ford tried to do.. What a joke!’
    Japanese companies do count defects ……what do they count then …if not defects?
    Japanese companies do use SPC on shopfloor and also for tracking time. I have seen it in Toyota.
    Can you provide which Japanese company, you have worked with?
    Monk

    0
    #149158

    Markert
    Participant

    Not at all … an interesting background.
    I’m curious about your comment that the Japanese don’t use SPC … I assume you mean they do, but not to track ‘standard times’, whatever they are.

    0
    #149161

    Daniel Fields
    Participant

    Marlon,
    You are not telling the whole story.
    Motorola’s market share has fallen. Sacked 60,000.
    GE outsource 70% of manufacturing. Customer satisfaction was higher before they started 6 sigma and they have never been able to get back.
    Lots of other examples of SS failures that have already been discussed.
    Don’t believe a word Harry says.  Just look at his BS about 15-20% sales loss at Cp=1.33.
    Next 5 points are no different to TQM etc
    Belts build destructive elitism
    “A sound  statistical  approach  is used”  … you really must be kidding here !!!  Look at the IBM statisticians comments !  … or have you been conned by Harry ?
    What positive things (if any) has SS added ?
     

    0
    #149162

    jimb01
    Participant

    I believe the quote is:
    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.So much better than:
    A rose by any other name is still a rose.This highlights the difference between poetry and prose. Quality is our most important product.

    0
    #149163

    Monk
    Participant

    Phil,
    I have been reading your posts on six-sigma and I am happy to say that you are simply brilliant.
    You seem to be a very talented old man, but looks like you are under utilised. You have not been given enough opportunities in your previous organisation or may be you have been overtaken by some black belts. I don’t see any logic in you critising 1.5 sigma shift and DPMO, when you yourself, donot have anything to offer. Looks like you are jealous of the achievements of the six-sigma community. Sorry…I can’t help you.
    Only thing, which I would like to suggest that you along with more like-minded people can start a new website and vent out all your frustrations and crib all yoru negative feelings. Probably that can relieve you of the pressure. Else..go to India and visit ‘Osho’ ashram and you will get freshened up.
    Anyways…donot stop your criticism of six-sigma. Atleast we have soemone, who thinks and does things differently….though without logic.
    Monk

    0
    #149165

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Since we’re tilting at windmills, here’s the actual quote for the totally retentive among us:   “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet.”  However, just think of my version as the modern day parlance, taking into account the 1.5 sigma shift.  ;-)
    Best of holiday wishes to all!

    0
    #149170

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Aside from that stupid post about what you have seen at Toyota maybe you could pucker up a little bit more before you plant those lips on Harry backside. You seem to have this hope that if you suck up enough you will be scooped up and placed on his right hand. That position is occupied by Reigle and you will need a lot of botox to get those lips in the shape to displace Reigle.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149172

    Lebowski
    Participant

    “Quality should not be based on specifications and counting defects. The nonsensical “Six Sigma” and “six sigma” tables have led people away from quality.”
    Specifications certainly were not the invention of Six Sigma. Most of the procurred material in the world is purchased to specifications and that includes Toyota. What companies are you aware of that work only to targets and not specifications?
    Lebowski

    0
    #149173

    Monk
    Participant

    Looks like Lebowski has tasted the backside of Harry…….they experience counts. This is true with Lebowski..
    Comeon tell the whole forum….your full story of how you got battered by Harry.
    Monk

    0
    #149175

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey Monk,
    Stop the stupid remarks like “tasting the backside fo Harry”.
    He only questioned if anyone really dealt only with targets.
    It is a reasonable question and doesn’t deserve a crude and insulting response.

    0
    #149176

    Monk
    Participant

    Stan,
    Pl. make the note of remarks by Lebowski. Do you think, those remarks were justified.
    “……..you could pucker up a little bit more before you plant those lips on Harry backside”.
    Now it looks like Lebowski is fond of Harry’s backside more than Six-sigma. because he makes it a point to mention it in most of his posts…isn’t it awful.
    Monk

    0
    #149178

    Lebowski
    Participant

    “……mention it in most of his posts…isn’t it awful.”
    You are a Six Sigma guy supposedly. You said most. So now one post equates to most? Let’s seem some data around that hypothesis or are you just one of those emotional response types?
    Lebowski

    0
    #149181

    Monk
    Participant

    The fact still remains ‘ Lebowski loves the back of Harry’. But WHY?
     

    0
    #149185

    EdG
    Participant

    HO,
    You ask how much is due to the tool set vs. the work or contributions of one individual.  I would suggest that neither is the major contributor.
    Rather it is due to the PEOPLE (Sr. Mgmt down to the lowest hourly worker) and the CULTURE of the Company (an openness to change, to improvement, and TRUST one another) that is the major driver.
    Else how do we explain why the tools work in one company but not in another?
    Just my 2¢ – Have a nice day.

    0
    #149186

    Lebowski
    Participant

    You made a statement and can’t back it up with data. Now we know what you are made of. Just another talking head.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149188

    Lebowski
    Participant

    EdG,
    You have made some very good points. You must consider the another option. There are many people teaching Six Sigma with the concept of the shift as a nice to know historical point. When I learned the DMAIC process it was a problem solving method. The shift was doesn’t make much difference since in the methodology it affects the capability study which is more of an information step to management. What other tool in DMAIC is even affected by the shift?
    The shift is important to two people. Reigle and Harry otherwise they have no contribution. We continue to deliver projects and nobody discusses the shift. Projects are run using dpu. Sigma is a poor measurement to use at the project level because it lacks sensitivity.
    If the only issue involved is the shift then teach it the way we learned it. Use data for the long term rather than a cookbook factor and the rest of the tools are used just as they always were.
    If we are restricted to dealing with targets only and no specifications then we will pretty much eliminate the use of any tools with the exception of Cpt and that doesn’t add much to moving towards a problem solution.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149197

    EdG
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    Between you and me, I don’t worry much about the shift.  Hey, SHIFT HAPPENS.  Right…
    I remember it in my training but we never went into any great depth.  It was fuzzy anyways.

    0
    #149198

    Lebowski
    Participant

    EdG,
    Absolutely. The only place it seems relevant is in an academic discussions. We have run a couple hundred projects without the inclusion of a shift assumption and they get to solution and still follow the DMAIC methodology. This seems more like a statiticians issue.
    I keep seeing the posts where everything has to justified by quoting Wheeler or Harry. It seems extremely constricting to not be able to experience anything on your own unless you can find something that one of these two wrote that validates it. What a horrible existence.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149204

    EdG
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    I have watched a number of threads discuss the 1.5 shift but I have yet to see anything that made sense.  I simply chalk it up to, “this is something that can happen over time” but it is a rule of thumb, NOT an absolute.
    Have a nice holiday…

    0
    #149205

    Col
    Participant

    Of course most products have specs of one kind or another.  However do you agree with Bill Smith that quality can be improved by widening specs and that this is just as important as reducing variation ?
    The very foundations of SS are flawed.  Anything built on such poor foundations needs a rebuild !!!
    Would you buy a house built on quicksand ?

    0
    #149210

    Cravens
    Participant

    Perhaps you missed it. Bill Smith pulled 1.5 out of the air as a maximum drift for uncontrolled processes. Harry then put his flakey theories on it to claim it always happened for all processes.
    It is not a “rule of thumb” !  It is total BS.  Forget it and eveything associated with it … including the name “six sigma”
    I’ve copied the history here for you:

    Bill Smith, a Motorola engineer claims that for uncontrolled processes “batch to batch variation can be as much as +/-1.5 sigma off target.” He gives no references or justification for this. In reality there is no limit to how much that uncontrolled processes may vary.
    At that time Motorola used Cp=1. Bill Smith suggested “Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width.” He broadens specification limits to Cp=2.
    Mikel Harry derives +/-1.5 as a theoretical “shift” in the process mean, based on tolerances in stacks of disks. Stacks of disks obviously bear no relation to process.
    Harry seems to realise his error in the 1.5 and says it “is not needed”.
    Harry in about 2003 makes a new derivation of 1.5 based on errors in the estimation of sigma from sample standard deviations. For a special case of 30 points, p=.95 he multiplies Chi square factor by 3, subtracts 3 and gets “1.5”. The actual value ranges from 0 to 50+. He calls this a “correction”, not a shift.
    Harry’s partner Reigle Stewart adds a new calculation he calls a “dynamic mean off-set.”: 3 / sqrt( n ) where 3 is the value for control limits and n is the subgroup size. For n=4 he gets “1.5”. Reigle says “This means that the classic Xbar chart can only detect a 1.5 sigma shift (or larger) in the process mean when subgroup size is 4″Reigle is quite incorrect. Such data is readily available from ARL (Average Run Length) plots.

    0
    #149212

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Worrying about a 1.5 sigma shift is like making an issue out of the designated hitter or astro turf. It’s noise. DMAIC works without the 1.5 sigma shift.
    Building a house on quicksand? Get a grip.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149215

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Col,
    Name one tool in DMAIC beyond Capability studies that are affected by the 1.5 sigma shift. There isn’t one and Capability doesn’t move a project any closer to solution. So what does the shift mean? Nada.
    I believe you have Mr. Smith’s quote out of context. If we run a DOE and in that DOE find the process will tolerate a wider specification then where is the issue? Keep them tight because that is better quality. Do you have any idea how antiquated that is not to mention how idiotic?
    Lebowski

    0
    #149219

    Mikel
    Member

    You don’t know what you are talking about.
    Bill Smith never said that quality can be improved by widening specs. There was a lot of work on understand the customer’s needs and if the specs didn’t reflect that reality, change them.
    It is a resource useage problem – why focus on what is not important to the customer?
    To say the foundations of Six Sigma are flawed is flat ignorant. The foundations are bulit on the work of Juran, Deming, Caplan (the Quality System one, not Balanced Scorecard), Shainin, Taguchi, and others. Maybe you don’t like the package Harry/Schroeder created, I don’t, but I also recognize that their BS created huge opportunites for folks to learn if they choose to.
    The 1.5 story is blown out of proportion. Bill Smith, Pete Peterson and others in Comm at Motorola also tightened requirements for machine runoffs and the like, not because of shift or long/short term, but because they recognized the frailty of capability metrics for small samples.
     

    0
    #149222

    Mikel
    Member

    Phil,
    You and I agree about “on target with minimum variance” but your quote from Bill Smith is out of context at best. I do know believe this was said without some context.

    0
    #149223

    Mikel
    Member

    Fred,
    You are just recycling a post that was wrong when it was writen.
    Point 1 is wrong, it was an observation of his processes, not a general statement about uncontrolled processes.
    Point 2 – note the word “suggests”. You will find no evidence that he or anyone else went out and doubled the widths of their specs arbitrarily.
    Point 3 – Harry tried to back into a justifcation lots of ways – all have been debunked.
    Point 4 – Harry was challenged and knew he could not defend his BS.
    Your last points are right and can be found in Harry’s Mysteries book (no longer available but I could set you up with a complete works vintage edition in which you get all books, tapes, and CD’s by Harry for one price). You should give him credit for Mysteries in that he used actual words and not clip art.

    0
    #149225

    Den
    Participant

    I view the 1.5 shift as a starting point.  It is better than nothing.  Going way back to the early 80’s so called “machine capability” studies had to have a better Cp/Cpk than so called long term “process capability” studies.  The 1.5 shift just formalizes the starting point.  It cannot be defended other than empirically that it is good to have your short term process run really well before investing a lot of time and effort into a long term process.
    If memory serves me right, TI had a goal of short term Cpk of 1.5 and a long term Cpk of 1.33 long before Six Sigma was “invented.”

    0
    #149231

    Sinnicks
    Participant

    Sorry Stan but you are incorrect.  Bill Smith did say that.
    “Making War on Defects” – Bill Smith 1993, page 46:
    “Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width. This influences the quality of product as much as the control of process variation does”.
    Perhaps you can now start to see how why he says the SS foundations are flawed.
     

    0
    #149233

    EdG
    Participant

    Isn’t that like saying, “if I continue to lower my standards then eventually I be pleased?”

    0
    #149234

    Sinnicks
    Participant

    Yes, that’s correct, just lower your standards to ensure quality.  It is ideal for 6S snake oil salesmen selling to CEO’s … “we can guarantee to cut defects” … yeh sure, easy with Bill Smith’s method !

    0
    #149235

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey smart boy,
    Now go read the context that was stated in and come back and tell us about that.
    Bill Smith nor anyone else at Motorola went out and just widened the specs without understanding the real need.
    If that had been the approach, Six Sigma would have been achieved in 1987. We had to report monthly on internal Quality (the Six Sigma metrics), external Quality, internal time (cycle time or turns), external time (delivery), and cost. All had to be trending in the right direction at the right rate. Anyone cheating the data got fired.
    If what you and your ignorant friends are implying happened, it would have been seen immediately (within a few reporting periods).

    0
    #149236

    mand
    Member

    You half-wit … let’s see you defend the 1.5 “empirically” as you claim. What is your evidence ?
    While you are at it, define “short term” and “long term” … Harry uses 6 sample points for both.

    0
    #149237

    Mikel
    Member

    Are you illiterate or just stupid.
    Go read what those other words on all those pages really say.
    You know I don’t agree with a lot of the nonsense like the 1.5, but for you fools to imply that Bill Smith did not have iintegrity or that what happened at Motorola from 1979 to about 1993 was not real is just pure ignorance on your part.

    0
    #149241

    EdG
    Participant

    I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
    Might I offer a thought?  I didn’t know the man but mace what he was driving at was:  If you are running a process with specifications well beyond what your customer requires then you are potentially driving unnecessary cost into your product.  Therefore if you drop your requirements to that in line with your customer’s need then your yield will improve and you added cost would probably drop.   MAYBE???
    —Why operate a process that manufactures pencils with specifications that rival the design of a core to a nuclear power plant?  Your customers will be just as happy with a functioning 25¢ wooden pencil than a $545 wooden pencil, but more inclined to purchase the former.

    0
    #149242

    Lebowski
    Participant

    That post is just about dumb enough to be appreciated by Monk.
    You are probably the same person who screams when the military specs out a $1000 hammer and then you turn around and post that kind of nonsense on here. When you have data that says the process isn’t affected by a variable why wouldn’t you open it up? Being priced right is a part of customer satisfaction. If the variable doesn’t affect anything and you spec it tight and increase cost what have you done for quality particularly if quality is defined by the customer. What is the difference between building waste/cost from scrap or defects and building in cost because you have some phobia about specifying things correctly.
    Lebowski

    0
    #149248

    Sinnicks
    Participant

    Listen you egotistical fat head, why not just try owning up when you are wrong ?
    You stated “Bill Smith never said that quality can be improved by widening specs. “
    You have been shown to be wrong.  Admit it !
     

    0
    #149250

    Lebowski
    Participant

    “Bill Smith never said that quality can be improved by widening specs. There was a lot of work on understand the customer’s needs and if the specs didn’t reflect that reality, change them.”
    Egotistical fathead? How about if you are going to quote someone you make sure you leave it in context. Your post was post was self serving and a borderline misrepresentation. Admit it!
    Lebowski

    0
    #149257

    Ashman
    Member

    If you look at the reference Mark gives, he is actually quoting very much in context. In fact Bill Smith goes on to give an example of widening the specs on a 1cm rod from +/-.1 cm to +/-.2 cm.
    I suggest you read Bill Smith’s article before jumping in.
    I can understand that it may be a surprise to find the legendary Smith making such statements.

    0
    #149264

    Marlon Brando
    Participant

    Agree

    0
    #149272

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Phil:
    your comments are very appropriate about Motorola using Six Sigma. I researched some old documents, and they do say that Six Sigma is an approach to achieve virtual perfection. It does not say anything about statistics, statistical tools, etc. The current definition about being a facts based, statistical techniques, etc. have been added later. Again, the intent was to create statistical thinking among engineering minds, rather than make them statisticians.
    Most of debate about Six Sigma has turned into statistics. That misses the intent of Six Sigma. Yes, the name sound statistical, can be in Greek. But, still we need to look into the intent, methodology, tools and measurements. Most of the tools commonly used in the powerful methodology are non-statistical. I believe most Six Sigma value is realized through intent, methodology, tools, and measurements, in this order.
    I hope it helps to look int the basis of the Six Sigma methodology, not the basis of Six Sigma, the shift, etc. It will sound more common sensical, and be useful.
    Praveen 

    0
    #149290

    Sinnicks
    Participant

    Lebowski, an apology would be nice – or is your ego as big as Stan’s and you don’t admit mistakes ?

    0
Viewing 67 posts - 1 through 67 (of 67 total)

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