iSixSigma

To Stan From Reigle

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General To Stan From Reigle

Viewing 41 posts - 1 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35453

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Stan: The 1.5 Sigma Shift Debate has now been finalized
    and set for Monday, July 26, 2004. All of the
    arrangements have been made. The debate will begin at
    9:00 AM and be located on-campus at Arizona State
    University, Ira Fulton School of Engineering. You will find
    the room number at the reception desk. You will need to
    submit your white paper not later than July 19, 2004 to Mr.
    Jeff Goss, Director, Center for Professional Development,
    Arizona State University. This will provide sufficient time
    for the referees to review your technical white paper and
    prepare their cross-examination questions. If you decide
    not to participate, then as a courtesy, please let me know
    ASAP so the arrangements can be cancelled.

    0
    #99796

    howe
    Participant

    Could you provide some background/details on this debate? Is it all about 1.5 sigma shift?

    0
    #99797

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Mike: With all due respect, the debate will be a closed
    session. The referees opinions will be published in a
    white paper for public consumption. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99798

    Savage
    Participant

    Is Statman still debating too??  I haven’t seen or heard from him in a long time.  Just curious.

    0
    #99799

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Matt: Yes, Statman is still on the agenda unless I hear
    otherwise. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99805

    Savage
    Participant

    I’m anxious to read the results.

    0
    #99816

    Darth
    Participant

    Why the need for a closed debate?  Can’t it at least be broadcast over the Internet?  It would certainly be of more value if we saw it live and drew our own conclusions rather than rely on a paper and opinions of a panel.

    0
    #99831

    Mikel
    Member

    Reigle,
    You are on.
    Assumptions for the white paper –
    1) The operations philosophy is to always target critical process parameters. This means we have a statistically based decision process to resume the operation after any disruption.
    2) We are using either SPC or a Poka-Yoke at each critical process parameter.
    3) We are debating the logic of having the 1.5 shift permanently built into our conversion of attribute data. In other words, we are not debating whether a 1.5 shift can happen instantaneously, bet whether it is rational to assume the shift should be assumed to be permanent.
    4) All processes are qualified with MSA and capability studies prior to use.
    5) As a secondary issue, we can debate if the parlour tricks you use for justification of the shift have anything to do with anything other than misdirection.
    I would like Mario Perez-Wilson, Mike Carnell, Steve Zinkgraf, Bill Ross, and Gary Cone also invited to the debate. All except Mario were employees 3 – 7 at SSA right after you.

    0
    #99834

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    I am scheduled out of the country for that date but have time to work on changing it. I would like to suggest John Lupienski fill in if I cannot make it.
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #99849

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Stan: The aim of this debate is quite simple and highly
    focused. You and Statman adamantly argued that Dr.
    Harry’s mathematics were theoretically wrong (as
    presented in his new book “Resolving the Mysteries of Six
    Sigma”). You stated over and over the shift factor was in
    error and had no statistical basis. Dr. Harry has called
    you out on this point. He has already made the
    aforementioned book available to the referees. At this
    point, the referees have not found the errors you say are
    there. Dr. Harry has already made his initial oral defense.
    The referees rendered an independent opinion previous
    published on this site. The referees are now expecting
    your mathematical counter arguments to his position (as
    given in the book). You will make an oral defense of your
    technical white paper, just like making an oral defense of
    the written dissertation for a doctoral degree. It is very
    simple … prove Dr. Harry’s mathematics wrong through
    mathematics, not your normal qualitative process-based
    rhetoric. I will guarantee you that these distinguished
    referees will not accept any other form of argument.
    Again, let me emphasize … your white paper MUST be
    focused on countering Dr. Harry’s mathematical position
    and then present your own mathematically-based
    alternative position. Also note that the debate session is
    “closed.” Like Dr. Harry, you will need to stand on your
    own two feet without cheer leaders. You will have the
    opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Harry about his position,
    and he will have the same opportunity to cross-examine
    you and your position. Do understand that your
    “assumptions” of Poka-Yoke, SPC, CTQs, and the like
    have little to do with the THEORETICAL basis for the shift
    factor? This debate is not about “operations,” its about
    the theoretical basis for a 1.5 sigma shift and is grounded
    in mathematics, not process tools and practitioner
    rehtoric. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99854

    Mikel
    Member

    Just one point of clarification – Dr. Harry has not called me out – his lap dog Reigle has.

    0
    #99855

    Mikel
    Member

    You will be missing out on good entertainment.

    0
    #99858

    howe
    Participant

    Stan,
    Help me understand the point of this “debate”. Is it to prove or reject the theoretical foundation behind 1.5 sigma shift?  Are you actually going to attend this debate or is this some kind of a late April fool day joke?
     
    I personally never thought much of this 1.5 sigma shift concept.  We keep saying “let the data speak for itself” and then we make some generalization like this for all processes known to mankind.  I have always performed the data analysis based on what data I had without going to this long term, short term capability and 1.5 sigma shift unless I had reasons to believe that the data was representing a long term data.
     

    0
    #99859

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Stan: Save the rhetoric, you are either in or out. I have
    gone to a lot of work to make this event happen. Other
    people have expended their time and made personal
    commitments to make this event happen. This is not a
    casual undertaking. The intent is to prepare a
    professional set of documents worthy of full consideration
    and subsequent publication. The position papers and
    referee’s opinion papers will represent a milestone in the
    progression of Six Sigma. Lets save everyone any further
    loss of time and energy … if you are going to do this, then
    lets move forward in a professional manner according to
    the wishes of the referees. If you are not in compliance
    with this or attempt to make a mockery out of it, you will
    only embarrass yourself and our profession. Our intent is
    to further the general body of knowledge, not sling mud
    and opinions.

    0
    #99861

    Mikel
    Member

    Reigle, no rhetoric, I’m in. Pointing out that Dr. Harry has not actually done anything, especially call me out, is not rhetoric, just a statement of fact.

    0
    #99862

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Stan: Very good. Please submitt your white paper to Mr.
    Jeffrey S. Goss, Director, Center for Professional
    Development, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering,
    Arizona State University, PO Box 874411, Tempe,
    Arizona, 85287-4411. The white paper is due to Mr. Goss
    NLT July 19, 2004. Thank you. Reigle Stewart.

    0
    #99864

    DaveG
    Participant

    Please provide a link (or equivalent) to the referees’ published decision.

    0
    #99865

    Savage
    Participant

    My question is who selected the referees??  Is there bias in the judging?  Why not have a panel of refs selected by all parties included in the debate?  You know Reigle, if this doesn’t happen, there won’t be much weight placed on the decisions.  At least not from the group I’m with anxiously awaiting the outcome.  It will just be dismissed as more Dr. Harry hocus-pocus  (not my opinion), but you know that will happen.  IMHO.

    0
    #99866

    Darth
    Participant

    Who are these esteemed referees and what are their qualifications?  If we are to accept their opinions as gospel, I want to be confident that they are sufficiently qualified to make a judgement.  Thanks.

    0
    #99871

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Darth: There will be two referees. First, Dr. Douglas C.
    Montgomery, Professor of Engineering, Ira A. Fulton
    School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe,
    Arizona. As commonly known, Dr. Montgomery is a world-
    renowned statistician and engineer. He has published
    many books and articles on the subject of mathematical
    statistics, quality engineering, design-of-experiments, and
    statistical process control methods. Second, Dr. J. Bert
    Keats, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, Ira A. Fulton
    School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe,
    Arizona. Dr. Keats is a recognized expert in reliability
    engineering and applied statistics and has published
    several books on these subjects. Their credential may be
    viewed at the following web addresses … Dr.
    Montgomery — http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/
    montgomery Dr. Keats — http://www.eas.asu.edu/
    ~masmlab/keats

    0
    #99873

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Darth: Sorry on the web address. For some reason, the
    system did not pick up the full address. Dr. Montgomery’s
    credentials – “http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/
    montgomery” Dr. Keats credentials – “http://
    http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/keats” Reigle Stewart.

    0
    #99874

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    “http://www.eas.asu.edu/~masmlab/montgomery” is the
    address for Dr. Montgomery. Sorry for the posting
    problem. Reigle

    0
    #99875

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Darth: If you review the credentials of Dr. Montgomery
    and Dr. Keats (from previous post), I do believe you will
    find their qualifications more than sufficient. Reigle.

    0
    #99876

    Savage
    Participant

    In the spirit of fairness, I think Stan and Statman should be able to select judges as well.  This all feels one sided to me – in my humble opinion.

    0
    #99877

    Darth
    Participant

    No problem, good choice.

    0
    #99880

    Darth
    Participant

    Reigle, since the debate will be at a high tech engineering school, can’t we observe via PictureTalk and/or a bridgeline so we can enjoy the action and not be disruptive.

    0
    #99882

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Darth: I agree this would be nice. So would a lot of other
    things that time and money can enhance. I have already
    put in a lot of gratis hours, phone calls, and some
    personal bucks in getting it to this point. The terms are
    fixed, the dates set, the format established. Now, we will
    let it unfold. As you can tell from the referee’s credentials,
    they are not the types to tolerate any slight-of-hand or
    rehtoric. Presumeably, Stan’s white paper will provide a
    mathematical counter to Dr. Harry’s equations to
    demonstrate theoretical error. Following this, both parties
    will be given an opportunity for oral defense of their
    documented positions. This means that the referees can
    challenge any portion of their respective documents …
    therein expecting clarification and mathematical
    justification. Following this, each party may cross-
    examine the other. The referees will then call a close to
    the debate. Finally, they will issue their opinion. Dr.
    Harry’s position has already been made public in the form
    of his book. We now await Stan’s white paper. So, the
    essence of the debate will be availible to all once the
    opinions are issued. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99885

    howe
    Participant

    Well, about this “debate”…. Riegle and his associates pick the referees. The location is in Arizona where the gang is from. This gives a whole new meaning to “home court advantage”.
    Entertainment? – Certainty
    Value added debate? -?

    0
    #99886

    SSNewby
    Member

    Stan,
     
    It seems to me that this is being positioned away from the strength of your argument which is/was the appropriateness, applicability and validity of the use of a 1.5 sigma shift in operations and positioned in the direction of a theoretical back-calculation of the impact of the shift – if the shift has occurred.  Is the question one of mathematical feasibility or appropriateness in real-world application?   I am concerned that the challenge [whichever way it goes] will not answer the real question.
     SSNewby

    0
    #99887

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    SSNewby: Please take the time to review the numerous
    posts that have been previously made on this subject. In
    this way, you can gain a first-hand understanding of the
    issue’s scope and depth. I would also suggest you read
    the book to get it from the horses mouth. Reigle

    0
    #99890

    Terry
    Member

    Reigle,
    I understand you have put in your own time and money. That’s great, and I’m sure Mikel Harry appreciates it. The fact still remains that you have selected people who are tied to Mikel Harry’s new venture through his SSMI company. So therefore, people who will be financially linked to Mikel Harry in the future are doing the judging. That does not appear fair to me, although I’m sure the two judges are of high integrity. Facts are facts.
    So how can you fix this situation? Get someone (preferably two) who is impartial to join the panel. Who are you going to get? Why don’t you ask for one judge from each of the other two people who are going to be debating Mikel Harry. This solution only sounds fair and everyone will feel the results of the judging panel are fair and balanced.
    R,Terry

    0
    #99891

    Savage
    Participant

    I’ve been making this suggestion all day, but Reigle keeps dodging the question.  I give up on that guy.  He really lives in a “theoretical” world.

    0
    #99892

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Matt: Sorry you feel that way. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99893

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Terry: Ok, so now you are the gatekeeper of what is “fair.”
    Perhaps we should start the whole process all over so
    you feel good. I am sure Stan is a big boy, he can handle
    himself. These referees are apart of the best staistical
    associations and journals in the world … I would believe
    they know how to be impartial, don’t you think … or do you
    now question their professionalism? Reigle Stewart.

    0
    #99894

    Reigle Stewart
    Participant

    Since I am not a part of the debate and given the debate
    has been structured, set in place, and the terms accepted,
    there is little need for further discussion. Reigle Stewart

    0
    #99901

    Arron
    Participant

    According to you, I guess not. Very closed minded, but I guess that’s what we should have expected.

    0
    #99952

    John H.
    Participant

    SSNewby
    Your comment is right on Target! The debate should answer the question of the appropriateness of the 1.5 sigma shift in real world situations. An example moderator question can be found at
    https://www.isixsigma.com/forum/showmessage.asp?messageID=19588
    John H.

    0
    #99953

    John H.
    Participant

    SSNewsby
    Sorry!
    Correction on the message ID  it is ID=39789
    John H.

    0
    #99954

    Schuette
    Participant

    Reigle,
    What about Stan’s request that Mario Perez-Wilson, Mike Carnell, Steve Zinkgraf, Bill Ross, and Gary Cone attend the debate.  Perhaps these gentlemen should be moderators!  From what I have seen/heard, these people have all had a fair amount of experience actually doing some real work in the trenches.  I would think that their opinion would be very valuable.

    0
    #99955

    Savage
    Participant

    Forget it Jim.  Reigle has dodged that since this thread started.  This thing is so one sided – but Reigle is the only one who doesn’t see that.
    Oh well, Stan and Statman are big boys.

    0
    #99961

    SSNewby
    Member

    Agreed.  Stan and Statman are well equipped for the debate.   That’s the primary reason I did not respond further to Mr. Reigle’s condescending note back to me telling me to do my homework.  Besides, with Mr. Reigle, all roads lead back to the good doctor anyway – which is also somewhat annoying after awhile.

     

    0
Viewing 41 posts - 1 through 41 (of 41 total)

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